prism of national security. that is our first duty is and when you have our allies asking you the intelligence not if you can make a difference i believe we should act. .. however, prime minister has not stood with european allies in the matter of taking our fair share of refugees from this chris sis and other. will he look again at the save children request that this country take 3,000 orphan children refugee currently in europe? >> i would say we have made -- played a huge part. no other european country has given enough as much as britain has and we've also going to take 20,000 refugees with a thousand arriving by christmas, but i'm issuf to look once again a the going to take 20000 refugees with 20000 riding bike christmas, but i'm happy to look at this issue of orphans that

it's better to take orphans from the region rather than those who come over with sometimes extended family, but i am happy to look at that again, both in and out of europe to see if britain can do do more to fulfill our moral responsibilities. this is not 2003. we must not use past mistakes as an excuse for indifference or in action and let's be clear, mr. speaker, inaction does not amount to a strategy for security or for the syrian people, but inaction is a choice and i believe it is the wrong choice. we have listened to our allies. get taken legal advice and have a unanimous united nations resolution. we have discussed extensively and i have responded personally to the detailed report of four and affairs select committee. we have a proper motion-- motion before this house and we are having a debate today and in the spirit of ford to the rest of the debate and look forward to

listening to the contributions of mentors on all sides of this house, but i hope at the end of it all the house will come together in large numbers for britain to play its part in defeating these evil extremists and taking the action is needed now to keep our country safe. in doing so, i taped tribute to the extraordinaire bravery and service of our inspirational armed forces who will once again put themselves in harms way to protect our values and our way of life and i commend this motion to the house. >> the question is motion number two as on the order. with a leader of the opposition, mr. jeremy corbin. >> thank you mr. speaker. the whole house recognizes the decisions to send british forces to war are the most serious, solemn and morally challenging of any that we have to take as members of parliament. the motion brought before the

house today, by the government authorizing military action in syria against isil faces as with exactly that decision. it runs potentially far-reaching consequences for saul here in britain as well as the people of syria and the wider middle east. for all members, a decision that will put british men and women in harms way and almost inevitably lead to the death of innocence is a heavy responsibility. it must be treated with the utmost seriousness and respect given to those who make a different judgment about the right course of action to take. which is why the prime minister's attempts to brown nose against the government as terrorist sympathizers both the demeans the office of the prime minister and, i believe, minimize the seriousness of the

law rations-- deliberations having today and the prime minister now wants to apologize for those remarks and i would happy to give way to him to do so. since mr. speaker, the prime minister is unmoved, we will have to move on with the debate and i hope he will be strong in-- stronger later to recognize that, yes, he did make an unfortunate remark and other in apologizing for it would be helpful to improve the atmosphere of this debate today. >> i found my honorable friend as he appropriately is pointing out that the prime minister is not showing leadership by not withdrawing his slur. when he also agree with me that

there is no place whatsoever in the labour party for anyone who has been abusing those members of the party who choose to go with the government on this resolution? >> mr. speaker, abuse has no part in responsible for craddick political dialogue and then i believe there strongly and that is the way i wish to conduct myself and i wish others to conduct themselves in that way. >> would he agree with me that the prime minister made a clear apology, he would clear the air and we could move on with this debate? >> well, f-- as he often does on these occasions he appears to be taking advice from the chancellor on this matter and if

he wants to apologize now that is fine. if he doesn't, well, the whole world can notes he is not apologizing. >> mr. speaker, since the prime minister first made his case for extending british forces in syria in the house last week the doubts and unanswered questions that expressed on both sides of the house have only grown or multiplied. that's why it's a matter of such concern that the government has decided to push this boat through parliament today. it would have been far better to allow a full two-day debate that would have given all members the chance to make a proper contribution and you yourself, mr. speaker, informed us 157 have applied to speak in this debate. it is, mr. speaker,-- >> grateful to the gentleman giving way and him and i have worked together and he knows how tough the kurds are finding it fighting isil in iraq and syria. his foreign secretary believes

the full conditions debated at labour party conference for taking action in syria have been met to read what he-- why do you disagree with him on that? >> it will be in my speech, i can promise him, but i'm also pleased he's made intervention for the kurdish people because at some point over the whole of the middle east there has to be a recognition of the right to kurdish people, in which they live. he and i have shared that view for more than 30 years in my view has not changed on that. >> i think the honorable friend for giving way and i am glad he is mentioned at the kurds. could be he-- could he be clear that he or anyone on this bench in no way will want to remove the air protection, which was voted on in an overwhelming majority in the house 14 months ago?

>> i thank my friend for that intervention and it's not part of the motion today. so, we move on with this debate. it's impossible, i think, mr. speaker, to avoid the conclusion that the prime minister understands that public opinion is moving increasingly against, what i believe to be an ill thought out rush to war and he wants to hold this float before the opinion grows even further against it. whether it's a strategy worth the name, absence of credible ground troops, the missing diplomatic plans for syrian settlement, the failure to address the impact of the terrorist threat or refugee crisis, it's becoming increasingly clear that the prime minister's proposal of military action simply do not stack up. >> i am very grateful to the honorable gentleman to give way

and i agree with what he is saying that the case has not been proved to. under the circumstances, whether or not he will reconsider that it is important that the labour party joints with those here in opposing the government to make sure this government-- >> everyone has to make a decision today. everyone has a vote today. every mp has a constituency and every mp should be aware of what constituents and public opinion is and they will make up their own my. obviously, i propose we do not support the government's motion tonight and i would encourage all colleagues on all sides to join me in the opposition lobby tonight. last week the permit astir discussed his case in syria by the full respected cross party foreign affairs select

committee. given the holes in the government's case it is scarcely surprising that last night the committee reported the prime minister had not and i quote adequately addressed their concerns. in other words, mr. speaker, the committee judge judge that the prime minister's case has failed its test. >> i am grateful to the honorable gentleman that the committee resolved for-three that the prime minister has not addressed concerns contained in the committees fekete report with the absence of his honorable friend who would have resisted that motion. but, it is on a narrow point when logically it's almost impossible for the prime minister to adequately meet those concerns given the fact he is not in a position to produce sufficient details to satisfy some of the colleagues.

it is a very weak point for him to rely on. >> i think the-- he and i have often had very applicable discussions and i assure we will again. the fact of the matter is that at the meeting of the foreign affairs select committee that the prime minister did not adequately address the concerns. obviously, i understand there are differences of opinion. there are plenty of disk-- differences of opinion all around this house. so, i ask the chair of the select committee to recognize that a decision has been made by this committee. as to the despicable and horrific attacks in paris, last month the question was was the government's proposal for military action in syria strengthens or undermines our own national security, must be

at the center of our deliberations. there is no doubt that the so-called islamic state group, mr. speaker, i have given way quite a lot of times already and there are 157 member suit-- wish to take part in this debate, so i think i should try to move on and speeded up slightly. there is no doubt that the so-called islamic state has imposed a rain of sectarian and inhuman terror in iraq, syria and libya and there is no question it also poses a threat to our own people. the issue now is whether extending british bombing from iraq to syria is likely to reduce or increase that threat to britain and whether it will counter or spread the terror campaign isil is waging across the middle east. the answers don't make the case for the government's motion. on the contrary, they are warning step back, a vote against yet another ill-fated

twist commend never ending war on terror. but start with the military dimensions. the prime minister has been-- unable to explain why extending airstrikes to syria will make a significant military impact on the existing campaign. isil is already being bombed by syria or iraq, by the us, france, britain and russia and other powers. canada has withdrawn from this campaign and no longer takes part in it. during more than a year of the bombings isil has expanded and lost territory. isil gained the islamic city. the claim that the superior british missiles will make a difference is hard to credit when the us and other states as an intervention said earlier when us and other states are struggling to find suitable targets. in other words, extending

british bombings is unlikely to make a huge difference. secondly, the prime minister has failed to convince almost anyone that even if british parties are in the air campaign would tip-- tip the balance there are credible ground forces able to take back territory now held by isil. it is quite clear there are no such forces. last week the prime ministers has a combination of kurdish military, the free syrian army would be able to fill the gap. he even claimed that 70000 strong of moderate fsa fighters were ready to coordinate action against isil with the western air campaign. that claim has not remotely stood up to scrutiny. kurdish forces are distance away in areas where isil controls,

nor the fsa, which includes a wide range of boots and few if any would regard as moderate and most operates in other parts of the country. the only ground forces able to take advantage of a successful anti- isil air campaign are stronger jihadist and groups close to the isil controlled area. if i think these are serious issues that we need to think through very carefully. i believe that is what the prime minister's campaign could lead to. this is why logic-- mr. speaker, i will give it later on in my contribution, but i think i should be enabled to make what is unimportant part of this contribution. this is why the logic of an extended air campaign is in fact mission creep and western boots on the ground, whatever the prime minister they say now about keeping british combat troops out of the way are a real possibility.

thirdly, the military aid of attacking isil targets in syria is not really part of a parent diplomatic strategy. the un security council resolution passed after the paris atrocities in light of in today's government motion does not give clear and unambiguous authorization for the uk bombing in syria. it would have had to be passed under chapter seven of the united nations to which the security council could not agree. the un resolution is certainly a welcome framework. for joint action to cut off funding, oil revenues, arms supply from isil, but i wonder how much sign there is about happening. >> myself and the other members

don't agree much with the necessity to cut off oil supplies and i agree with him. i can-- i met a complete loss that i would understand why he would oppose airstrikes, which is such a crucial part in the oil supply. >> the problem is the oil supplies that have been sold by isil are going into other countries, into turkey and other places and i think we need to know exactly who is buying about oil, who is funding that loyal, what banks are involved in financial transactions, which ultimately end up with isil and which other countries in the region may or may not be involved in it. despite the clear risk of potentially disastrous instance, shooting down of a russian military plane or turkish forces

is a sign of the danger of a serious escalation of this whole issue. >> i'm grateful to him giving way. the number of these ground troops are known in the composition is also, but we know by definition they are opposition fighters. does he agree with me that the prime minister has a question to answer about how we can work with them to retake ground without getting in to a wider conflict with russia? >> i think you make an important point and she has been very active in trying to promote humanitarian resolutions to the many complex that exists around the world. fortunately, mr. speaker, the prime minister has avoided spilling out the british people the warnings that he has been

given. the likely impact of uk airstrikes on the threat of terrorist attacks in the uk. that is something everyone should weigh and think about carefully before we vote whether or not to send fighters into action over syria. it is critically important, mr. speaker, that we as a house or on us with british people. about the potential consequences of the action the prime minister is proposing to us today. i am aware that there are those in military experience occluding member's on the bench who have argued that extending uk bombings will and i quote increase the short-term risk of terrorist attacks in britain. we should also remember the impact, mr. speaker, on communities here in britain. sadly, since the paris attacks, there has been a sharp increase in islam a phobic instance of

physical attacks. i have discussed these with people in my local mosques and its horrific. surely, mr. speaker the message from all of us in this house today must go out. none of us and let's say this together, we will not tolerate any form of anti-semitism, islamic obeah racism of any form in this country. for minister, has not offered a serious assessment in my view of the intensified air campaign on civilian casualties in isil held syrian territory. all the wider syrian refugee-- at least 250,000 have already been killed in serious terrible civil war. 11 million made homeless, and a 4 million forced to leave the country. many more have been killed.

yet, more bombings in syria will kill innocent civilians. and turn many more syrians into refugees. yesterday, i was sent a message from a constituent of mine who comes from syria. i'm sorry, it is not funny. it is a family who is suffering. i quote from his message, i'm a syrian, which is now controlled by isil. members of my family still live there. isil did not kill them. my question to david cameron is can you guarantee the safety of my family when your air forces drop bombs on my city. it is a fair question from a family who are very concerned. thank you very much.

>> i speak as a member of the military and there is a fundamental point here that we think that the leader of the opposition is making and that is that this is about national security. all of these conflicting arguments, the complex situation is very very difficult, but it comes down to national security and inhibiting what these people are trying to do in the streets of this country. yes, of a course, security on the streets of this country and all of our community is very important. that is why we have supported the government in no longer pursuing a strategy of-- also increasing security in this country because clearly none of us want any kind of atrocity on the streets of this country.

>> order, order. legislator, the member who has the floor cannot be expected to give way to a further intervention when he is in the presence of altering an existing one. he is experienced enough to be aware of that. >> i would like to give way. >> i am very grateful. in making his point, does the leader of the opposition accept that there is 70000 moderate sunnis that the prime minister claims is there consists of many different jihadist groups? there is some concern, i think his cross the house, that in potentially degrading isil, which is possible we actually

create a vacuum into which other jihadists come over time. that surely does not make the streets of britain safer. >> mr. speaker, i now give way to the member. seem that i am grateful for him giving way. he has a consistent position relation to opposing airstrikes. on the 26, september, 2014, when he voted against airstrikes in iraq he said this: i do not believe third airstrikes and deepening of our involvement will solve the problem. does he maintain his opposition to airstrikes in iraq? >> mr. speaker, i think both members further intervention and this is a serious one. we have to be careful about what happens in the future and we have to very aware of the danger

of some people, many young people, being radicalized and end up doing dangerous things, indeed. is the radicalization of the sum, small number, but significant number of young people across europe, a product of the war or something else? i think we need to think very deeply about that and think deeply about what has happened in this world since 2001, and the increasing numbers of people that are suffering because of it. i rest my case at that point. >> there isn't a mr. speak you-- speaker and ui strategy to provide humanitarian assistance. mr. speaker, perhaps most importantly of all, i asked the premise to this, is he able to explain how british bombing in syria will continue-- contribute

to a conference of negotiated political settlement of the syrian war? such a settlement is widely accepted to be the only way to ensure that isolation and defeat of isil. isil grew out of the invasion of iraq in the chaos and horror of a multi- war. >> i think my honorable friend for giving way. the prime minister spoke of the choice between action and interaction that we face today. those of us who will be voting against airstrikes also want to see action. the prime minister saddam is nothing about cutting off the financial supplies, which by the bonds and help radicalize recruits. does not honorable friend agree with me that we need action on

this point x. >> we absolutely need action to ensure there is a diplomatic and political solution to the crisis and i welcome what the prime minister said about speeding up the process and bni, but surely the message ought to be at the speed rather than sending now to bring about political settlement. what we need, therefore mr. speaker, is on involvement of all of the main regional and international powers. now, that i know that has been attempted. i know that there have been discussions and vienna, and we welcome that. i think it is regrettable-- mr. speaker, i will try to make progress with the speech, if i may. there are over 150 memos that wish to speak, therefore, i think long speeches actually take time out of speeches. the aim must be to establish a

broad-based government in syria that has the support of the majority of its people. difficult as it is at the present time. but, such assessment-- a settlement could help take back territory from isil and bring about their lasting defeat in syria. mr. speaker, i am sorry to have to-- i have given away quite a lot. i am now going to continue with my speech. ultimately-- order. >> very long established convention of his house is the member who has the floor gives weight or not as he or she chooses. the opposition has made it clear that he is not giving way and the response is not to jump up and shout give way. it's not terribly sensible. >> the point i was making was

that ultimately the solution in syria has to be by all the people of syria themselves and i think i'm actually we all agree. i thought i made it clear and i think the speaker made it clear that at the moment i am not giving way. i'm really sorry, but i am not. the governments proposal-- >> point of order. >> mr. speaker, there is indeed he that holds the floor decides whether or not to give way. is it-- is it not also customary to question intervention and we are waiting for the answer on a rock. we are waiting for the answer on iraq. >> the honorable gentleman is a

experienced parliamentarian to know that he has made his own point in his own way and it's on the record. mr. jeremy corbin. >> the government, mr. speaker if i could move on i would be grateful. the government's proposal for military action in syria are not backed by a clear and unauthorized-- clear and unambiguous authorization by the net-- united nations and does not make-- [inaudible] >> it is not fulfill our own foreign affairs committee but it does not fulfill three of the four conditions laid down in my own party conference resolution a couple of months ago. [shouting] the past week, mr. speaker, boyce have been given to great opposition to the government's plans across the country. in parliament and in immediate

and, indeed, in my own party. and i believe it's a consideration of all the wars we've been involved in in the last 14 years. these matters were degraded through my own campaign to be elected the leader of the labour party, and many people think very deeply about these matters. the right of the record of western military interventions is one that has to be analyzed. british bombing in syria risks yet more of what president obama in a very thoughtful mom called the unintended consequences of the war in iraq, which he himself opposed at the time. iraq, afghanistan and libya looms over this debate. [shouting] mr. speaker, i am not giving way. i'm going to carry on with my speech.

[shouting] >> mr. speaker, to oppose another war and intervention, in my view, is actually not pacifism. it's common sense which i think we should be thinking about it today in this house. to resist our self-determination to draw the western powers back into the middle east isn't to turn our backs our allies. it's refusing to play into the hands of isil of what i suspect some of them wanted to do. is in the wrong for us when we sesee a problem, passing motion, drop bombs and pretending we are doing something to solve it? that's what we did in afghanistan, iraq, libya. has terrorism increased or decreased as a result of all of that? the prime minister said he was looking to build a consensus

around the military action he wanted to take. i don't believe he has achieved anything of the kind. he has failed in my view, to make the case for another bombing campaign. all of our efforts are going to go into freeing the syrian civil war to an end. iraq, afghanistan, libya, i ask members to think very carefully about the previous decisions we have made. [shouting] what we are proposing to do that they descend british bombers -- >> point of order spent on a number of occasions of receiving complaints from the public, what do you think the public thinks when i write on both in the leader of the opposition is being shouted out constantly by the government benches? >> i think what the public wants is a civilized the robust debate by members on both sides of the

house. i think the honorable gentleman, very experienced member for the point of order. let's proceed without fear or favor. mr. jeremy corbyn. >> thank you, mr. speaker. sometimes in this house we get carried away with the theatrics of the play, and forget the art millions of people who sent us to this house to represent them, and we should be able come and we should be able to conduct our debates any decent, respectful and civilized manner. and short as this debate is compared the number who want to speak, i hope all those members who have applied to speak to get called. and i conclude with this point, mr. speaker. in my view, only be negotiated political and diplomatic endeavor to bring about an end to the civil war in syria will bring some hope to the millions

who have lost their homes, who are refugees, who are came out and there is point all across europe, dreaming of a day that they can go home. i think the overriding goal should be to end of the civil war in syria. and, obviously, also to protect the people of this country. that is why, mr. speaker, i do not believe that the motion put by the prime minister achieve that because it seems to put the emphasis on bombing now were as i think the emphasis should be not on bombing now, but i'm bringing about all our endeavors, all our intelligence and all our efforts -- [shouting] i think it very strange that members don't seem to understa understand, they don't want to hear people shouting at each other. for those reasons, for those reasons, mr. speaker, for those reasons, mr. speaker, i urge

members on all sides of the house to think very carefully about responsibility lies with them today. do we send in bombers not totally unaware of what are the consequences are going to be, or do we pause, not sinned and come and instead put all of our efforts into bringing about take peaceful, humanitarian and just political settlement to the terrible situation faced by the people in syria? >> or alan duncan. >> mr. speaker, i don't think there is anybody on either side of the house, as all of us are trying to show responsibility and duty who in any way relish the decision that we are being asked to take today. it is not straightforward like the response in patients of the

falklands. it's a very for difficult decision we are being asked to take it and taking it i think we have to have two issues in the forefront of our thinking. first, the security of our own country, and secondly the desperate need to restore stability in the middle east. but rather, i would like to pick out and emphasize a few points which i would ask the house solemnly to consider. the question of whether to commit our armed forces has actually over the last figures become seriously muddied, both by the painful expense of past decisions and by the complexity of the unfolding disorder across the arab world. the experience of afghanistan and asking for which the leader of the opposition referred, and of iraq, more significantly,

have led to growing precedent and, indeed, unrest. the first point i would like to emphasize is that he must take the decisions today based on the merit of the day. we must base it on the day's facts and not on yesterday's mistakes and regrets. >> here, here. >> welcome before i give way quickly, can i just point out politely to the stop the war coalition. that when it actually comes to syria, stopping the war is exactly what we want to do. >> here, here. >> i think the gentleman for giving way. i absolutely agree that what we need are facts and greater clarity about our capability to take on the task that is ahead

of us. yesterday we were told that there were between 20 and 30,000 daesh across syria and iraq but i could be given a number as to how many taliban were fighting in afghanistan to get a comparative when we had 10,000 of our troops and 30,000 others fighting to get i couldn't get that. i couldn't get an answer to how -- automatic editing get an answer to how many troops we will be flying. do we need those questions answered? >> these must not be speeches, however well intentioned. alan duncan. >> i appreciate the search for certainty in the middle east is a vain hope, perhaps the watchword which 35 years ago when i first -- if you're not confused you don't understand. [laughter] it is a very, very complex world in which we are fighting a daesh. secondly, mr. speaker, let me

move on to my second point. the second point if i might address this right honorable gentleman the leader of the opposition, we must not underestimate the extent and the nature of the danger we face and say that because it's all over there, it's not over here. it's not only a vicious force running rampant through that measurable space between iraq in syria. it is also between those who would readily walk up the main street of a major city with a suicide bomb or a caring a collapsing bomb. so to those in favor of airstrikes would increase the danger, i would urge them not to get into that narrative. these people are already targeting us now. >> here, here. >> thirdly we have to see this threat -- no. in the context of even come of

even greater regional danger. we are witnessing the collapse of nation-states across potentially -- along with a violent release of centuries of sectarian hatred. a crucial element of our policy, mr. speaker, should be to try to stop the spreading. and that means that we must support stable rules within six countries of the gcc and those -- conduct, simply do not understand the horror that would be unleashed by further instability in the region. even now we face the real prospects of an art of brutality and terrorism stretching from syria through iraq to yemen, right across into a terrifying link with the horn of africa. and forcefully, we can't turn

away from this threat and subcontract our obligations. >> here, here. >> if we are to pursue the destruction of ice is a daesh and rebuild stable governments -- ice is daesh -- and underpin wider stability and make more and make all of that a series in convincing objective of our foreign policy, we must be part of the convoy that is trying to do it. we cannot watch it roll by on not playing our part. but, frankly, our reputation, our international reputation has suffered from the vote in august 2013. our allies now question -- no. whether we can be relied upon when they call for joint

assistance. mr. speaker, if we choose today to ring on the sideline, especially when there is a new and unequivocal u.n. resolution in place, it signals to the world that the uk has indeed chosen to withdraw. mr. speaker, we should not be in the business of national resignation from the world stage. >> here, here. >> perhaps indeed the paradox of our position today is not that we are doing too much, but that we are doing too little. but if i get the concern come and in manila correctly to the right honorable gentleman, the leader of the opposition, it is the action i hope we will vote for tonight is not the whole answer. at the prime minister is not pretending that it is.

the hopes that local so-called moderate forces can do the job on the ground and somehow put humpty dumpty together again is of course more an act of faith that a certain plan. but i think it's wrong, however, that the leader of the opposition to dismiss the significance and conclude that their composition is sufficient reason to do nothing. tonight, mr. speaker, i think we should carry the motion. we've got to carry it with our eyes open, knowing that we are flying into a mass that shows that easy prospect on being quickly resolved, but we cannot leave a viable force unchallenged. >> here, here. >> mr. speaker, these airstrikes it do matter. i believe they are justified. i also think my view, the future judgment of the prime minister

about what then follows will eventually become more important than the decision we're taking tonight. >> here, here. >> mr. angus robertson. [shouting] >> it's a pleasure to follow the right honorable gentleman, a fellow member of the intelligence and security committee although if there will be in different places. mr. speaker, -- implementing support which appears in my name and those of honorable and right honorable gentleman, i dropped into the fact -- [inaudible] signed by members of six different political parties and over 100 members from across the house and it reads that while welcoming the renewed emphasis towards piece and reconstruction in syria and accountants recognition that accompanies a strategy against daesh is required but not the least the participation in the ongoing air campaign in syria by 10 countries has been made under current circumstances, and consequent declined to authorize

-- >> here, here. >> mr. speaker, med begin by thanking the prime minister. i'd like to thank them for his statement and his nationals good advice and colleagues from the minister of defense, the foreign commonwealth office and other agencies. and i again put on record our appreciation to all of those who are charged with keeping a safe at home and abroad. >> here, here. >> and notwithstanding the profound differences i have with the prime minister on the issue, i would wish to commend him of parliamentary in recent weeks -- [inaudible] it's disappointing to say the least that he chose to describe opponents of his bombs aspect -- describe opponents of his plans. [inaudible]

>> the and in the is signed by my colleagues, both of whose husband served in the armed forces with distinction. it's also been signed by members of northern ireland who have expressed terrorism firsthand. it is totally wrong for members of this house -- bombing syria. i fear he is not going to. [inaudible] i will give way to the prime minister if he wishes to apologize. [shouting] i hope the prime minister regrets what he said. [shouting] -- share the concerns with her when else house as a country about the terrorist threat by

daesh, the assad regime and regular raised the issue of refugees across the region and in your. europe if there is agreement that the threat is real and doing nothing is not an option. however, however we recall that only two years ago this prime minister, this government wanted us to bomb -- [inaudible] which we no doubt would have strengthened them. now, of course, there is no shortage of countries currently bombing in syria. most recent the russians have been targeting daesh and too often the moderate opposition to assad as well. strikes in syria includes and it's a long list, australia, bahrain, canada, france, jordan, saudi arabia committed in which also uses brimstone as a weapon,

the republic of turkey which addressing is also bomb our allies in kurdistan, the united arab emirates in the united states of america. open sources confirm, mr. speaker, that since september 2014 these airstrikes have included falcons come f-22's, super hornets, sea launch tomahawk cruise missiles and also weapons from drones launched from above the syria. the united states center command confirmed that the united states has conducted more than 2700 airstrikes in syria. in its update from the combined joint strike force coalition shows that military forces have continued to attack gays terrorists in syria, send bombers and remotely-piloted aircraft -- in a moment. these have included -- destroyed and isil tactical vehicle -- i'm

everything from reports from the united states military, from raqqa, this would isil vehicles, one strike destroyed and isil vehicle, two strikes strike and isil tactical unit and destroyed and isil checkpoint. the point is there is bombing currently underway in syria, and to pretend that what is being proposed while not taking that into account is highly misleading and they give way to the honorable gentleman. >> does he think there is a legitimate case for those operations i would want them to withdraw? >> i'm supportive of efforts which are later stabilization in iraq. it's very important, but i would like to stress one thing in particular. i think we have a particular responsibility towards the kurds, old in the back and in

syria. and i would wish that the prime minister would use his good offices would do with nato allies that we do not undermine efforts in iraq and syria. [shouting] and ensure that turkey does not bomb our kurdish allies. i've given way and that will make progress. the prime minister has asked us to listen to his speech for bomb in syria and we have. i know have repeatedly asked to very specific questions to all members on both sides by the south but how will the uk plan to compete on the grid in syria? the house of commons workers committee asked which ground forces will take hold and administered territories captured from daesh in syria? and the second question, the second question that i posed was how will the uk plan secure long-term stability and reconstruction in syria, given that the uk spent 13 times more

bombs in libya and honest post-conflict stability and reconstruction? and ask the prime minister, how much do you estimate this will cost and how much has he allocated from the united kingdom? i would like to turn to those two questions. regarding the issue of growth forces would've told our 70 troops that are opposed to assad and daesh which could take the territory that daesh currently holds. the problem is that only a part of those forces are moderate and there's actually no evidence whatsoever that they would deploy from other parts of the country. i asked the prime minister and interventions and members will have heard. i asked the prime minister of those 70,000, how many are moderate and how many are fundamentalist? i have not had an answer to that question and i would like many members of the comments aikido the rest of the house what that

is. [shouting] >> -- critical issue on the critical issue posed by -- i will give way in a moment to distinction of intelligence and security committee, of course i will but this is an absolutely vital point. it was a vital point raised by the ford affairs select committee, a key part of the argument of having any credibility that a bombing strategy will lead to meeting a long-term piece in syria and it was the daesh, is our grand -- ground forces cable taking the ground? we are repeatedly, that asked again, will any, i will give way, if any member of the government side wants to elucidate and explain to the house where the prime minister would not, therefore secretary, i'm happy to give way to him if

he will confirm what is the makeup of the 70,000 -- [shouting] >> tried to i have not asked a question directly to the prime minister which he didn't answer. i challenged the force i could answer the question. is anybody else from the government side who answer the question? i give way to the honorable gentleman. >> we are at a very similar points. the point the right angle gentleman is making is a knit picking quibbling point -- [shouting] if he wanted me out. if you will hear me out. if you will hear me out. it's dancing on the head of a pin to try and achieve the result of the honorable gentleman's answer. the on these people, we have to trust them. they are not on -- site and they're not on isil site.

we need to work with them. >> here, here. >> let's get this right, mr. speaker. the prime minister has been asked the question. before secretary chu was given an opportunity to confirm the answer to the house. members from the government were asked the question. i see another member prepared to intervene so let me except of that intervention if we're going to get an answer to the question, 70,000, non-assad and non-daesh forces, how many of them are moderates and how many of them are fundamentalist? i give way. >> he is a clever man and he rarely ask a question that he does not know the answer to himself. so i will put the question back to you. how many moderates he thinks? and also recently tied up on the 70,000. seems he has forgotten the courage and syria from the several battalions of syria christians and also the arabs in north and northeast syria who will work with the free syrian army to take on daesh.

no answer. >> anybody watching this debate and reading hansard in the future will be able to recognize that this question has been asked time and time and time again and we have not had an answer to that question. i have given away a significant number of times no. [shouting] and nobody has answered me and nobody -- [shouting] sorry. if my ex-dean -- my esteemed colleague is able to answer the question i would be delighted. >> what interests me about the argument the right honorable gentleman is putting forward is erased is perfectly legitimate questions which should i hope be answered in the course of the debate. but what he glosses over is what

his and his party's position is on the current operations which i think you will agree with me are, in fact, controlling daesh ability to do violence and cruelty in the area, and terrorism in europe. and if, indeed, those actions at the moment involving our allies both in syria and in iraq are achieving that goal i find it difficult to -- how we ourselves should not cooperate. >> here, here. >> i have great respect for the right honorable judgment and i will comment later but we haven't heard and acted to the question which i oppose. if the honorable gentleman can answer the question. [shouting]

>> i think the right honorable gentleman for giving way. are members of the foreign affairs select committee, -- [inaudible] the answer that you seek, i contend, is about 10-15,000 that would be absent -- the answer given by everyone there. >> that's a very favorite import intervention from the honorable lady. from her experience and having traveled the region she is suggesting that the government figures that we been provided are massively wrong here and this is a favorite important point, mr. speaker. we are now hearing on a crucial issue raised by the ford affairs

summit committee a crucial -- far from the 70,000 we heard, it's significantly less. they should worry us all and i will have made some progress. the problem with this issue and it is a critical issue, is that it is only a part of the forces that the prime minister and his colleagues have spoken about are moderate and there's absolutely no evidence whatsoever that they would definitely -- [inaudible] and it appears totally -- that a comprehensive -- any redirection of any forces from other fronts in syria. on stabilizing and rebuilding syria, mr. speaker, the second question i pose to the prime minister, it will cost $170 billion to rebuild syria to

the prime minister has made a commitment that should be 1 billion pounds which is welcomed money to do with the rebuilding after the stabilization of syria, which we welcome. we are entitled to ask however, mr. speaker, whether contribution of less than 1% of what is required is realistically going to be enough. >> here, here. >> yesterday like some of the members of the house i took the time to meet syria exiles to hear their views. it was heartbreaking to hear about people who are literally surviving just on hope and a 16 year-old who only wishes to attend their makeshift school in the basement. they asked whether we are -- stop fighting assad and move into other parts of the country to fight daesh. that askedw