not enough hours. circumstances of work that are hard to combine with raising a family. so we need to build on what seated which is a set of programs -- we need to build on what succeeded. employment insurance and social poverty,has reduced food stamps, snap. that is an import and success, but the piece that has been a headwind for families, particularly for parents, is the job market and the nature of low-wage work. i think there are lots of things we can do that would build on successes we have had and help those families do better. full-time forwork a year, the percentage of people in poverty is less and 3%. so i am not so sure that it is wages. it is the extent of ours and the availability of work. and it is also programs focused on encouraging people to get into work as rapidly as possible. we have a growing number of people that are recipients of

assistance, like snape, a food program. it is a great program in america, but it is not helping people get into employment so they can really raise their incomes and move out of poverty. we need more of that in our public policy focus, from washington and from the states. specifically, what would you do to change the food assistance program. guest: iran the program in new york city and we saw a huge ran the in number -- i program in new york city and we saw a huge increase in number of people getting food assistance. but we also wanted to get people and employment as quickly as possible. the two often did not meet. then we had a program that would provide assistance but it was not set up to encourage people into employment services programs, either by encouraging or by requiring. for certain populations, single

individuals without children, who are perfectly able-bodied and working age, i think there should be a much greater focus on helping them get into employment and encouraging them to get in employment. only in that way will their incomes really rise. i think the evidence is kind of different from that when you look across the country. ,hose poor kids i talked about 70% of them living with someone working, almost one-third of them living with someone working full-time for a year and still poor. i think the difficulty people have in getting full-time hours is an enormous issue. ,he states i am working with and it is consistent with research, are finding that if you make sure that people have enough to eat and they have health insurance and have help with childcare, that actually stabilizes and improves their work experience. from my perspective, and these are not primarily liberal state,

idaho, rhode island, colorado, etc., so i think my perspective would be that when you help parents put food on the table, be able to pay for their kids' health care, and help with childcare, you are helping them stabilize. the picture that is our public programs discouraging work is a , ature about 25 years old picture of programs before we improved them so that they help low-income working people. now what we have to do is have the economy and the nature of work support people the way our other kinds of help do. guest: i was as big as a proponent as possible. the results and the poverty numbers are showing we are not getting enough work. we are not focusing enough on job creation.

proponent be a major to make things stronger. as i incremented the style of indications for people knitting together these benefits and not working, that their incomes were staying below poverty. that was not helping them the way they wanted to be helped. statistics that are discouraging. real median household income for african-americans is down 14%. 14%. we are way off for blacks in america. i do not know that now we have done this work support for the last seven years that we should you more of it. we should get back to a full

employment and much more aggressive focus on employment. >guest: it is important to highlight all the things we can do and have done well. increasing coverage among -- host: are those people still included in poverty? guest: it shows up in people's lives. we know a lot about the long-term effects of having health insurance. you can get treatment for a chronic back pain or mental health problem you can do better as a parent or worker. that is a big success. despite the picture that congress cannot agree on anything, they did pass a revision, improvement of the

work training program. we have been working with staff for 10 years and we are excited to do better. it is the center for law and social poverty. we focus on policy. we work with federal and state governments, all parties, community organizations. host: is it a think tank? guest: advocates who are grounded in research. i would prefer all the people watching to our fact sheet on the census figures. we do lots of practical advice. it might be something like the program working with the states and the staff who need good ideas on what to do. we might work with legislatures

and staff. our goal is policy that will help people parent and children succeed and move up and have better lives. with hhs during the clinton and administration. democrat,florida, please go on with your question. caller: how are you doing? [indiscernible] speak out. host: thank you. we talked earlier about eric holder. we are talking about poverty in the u.s. michelle on the republican line. caller: i hope everybody is having a great day. we're always talking about the symptoms and not the cause.

skills tonot have the get the jobs that they need. jobs are given to people -- people who have skills who have hundreds of thousands of jobs are unfilled because people do not have the training. you can fix these little things on the fringes. you have to teach them how to fish. people have to know how to improve their skills. a lot of people complain about not getting jobs. create your own jobs. people are forced to find ways to create their own jobs instead of waiting for some job to be handed down. guest: i think it is a great point. turning to the issues that lead to poverty is an important part

of the discussion. which children and households raised by single parents are far or likely to be an poverty. i think we need to talk about that as well. we need to send a message that if we want to raise children successfully and properly, to involve -- two involved caring parents is better than trying to do what is difficult but sometimes harrowing to raise children on their own. i also think training education programs play a role. they have to be linked with a job. whate cash welfare world, we were doing was saying training education alone does not help people get into

employment and raise their incomes. supplement so people can move up. if we get overly focused in training adults and say let's put you in a training education world without an attachment to work, i am not so sure we will be successful. host: hi, nancy. caller: i am glad to hear some of the points you're guest just made. your female guest needs to have a violin over her head. downtrodden,ut the let's get real in this discussion. there is fraud and deception and loopholes. people go to work every day. the extra money is going to people who have nefarious intentions. i see it every day.

people use those cards every day. they pull a lot of cash out of their other pockets. those cards are not just use for nutritional purpose. i see people use those cards in clothing stores. home goods products. nobody is going after this because it is politically incorrect. guest: let me highlight two things. the picture that both callers should have in your mind about who is poor in america today. a young woman i met who provided life father-in-law extraordinary home care in the last year of his life while she was also raising a child. think about a parent who is

working probably irregular hours, maybe in home care or retail or a jerk store or fast food -- or a drug store. that person is struggling to do what we want them to do, which is work more and move up. you have to have education and skills to move up. we focus on access to community college and training programs. that is what it takes. that young woman i met needed to be able to make the leap if she was going to support her family. i ran programs in three different states and working with six states now. i would highlight there isn't a lot of fraud or error but you do have to pay attention to it. technology is you good ways to make sure you're using all the

information you have. you do not want it to be impossible to get health insurance. you want to use all the data you have. there is good work going on on that. guest: on the question of those that we limitosed the use of the food stamp card in the case of sugar and sweetened beverage, a leading case of obesity and type two diabetes. it to go for nutritious foods and not foods that are bad for people. york to a test in new see how it worked. we were not able to do that. when it comes to the use of that ist cards,

something we need to work harder on. host: a call from kansas on the democrats line. you are on. caller: i think the biggest problem is too little wages. people cannot live on minimum wage if they work 80 hours of work. beef has doubled in price. i think every ceo should have to work one year on minimum wage and see if they can live off of it. anst: well, we have assortment of programs which make wages that are minimum for households with children go much further. you can get a $5,000 earned income tax credit above the value of the minimum wage. you can sometimes get food stamp benefits. we shore up wages in that way

that makes those wages go farther. i am concerned of the negative impact on a mandated higher minimum wage on the people that are struggling the most in america. further oute forced of the labor market. guest: i think the minimum wage is important. people need to be able to support a family through work. we work with employers. low wage jobs often have other challenges that make it hard to raise a family. one issue is scheduling. you find out your hours a few days in advance of your shift. you cannot make a steady income when you cannot better yourself by going to school. improvements in wages at work

and in scheduling of low wage work are important. host: dave is in california on the republican line. we are talking about poverty in the u.s. caller: i hope i do not get nervous. the minimum wage should be no less than $15 an hour. host: we are listening to you. caller: $15 an hour. inflation. with my wife works at an office on a computer and gets paid a good salary. people doing all the work, dishwashers, working at mcdonald's don't get any money. all they have to do is raise the memo wage to at least $15 an hour. i will let you comment.

host: thank you very much. let's go to tax policy. earned income tax credit. has that been effective? guest: earned income tax credit has been effective. there were some expansions in the recovery act to help target some of the children's tax credits. that has been effective. proposed by republicans and democrats is expanding the earned income tax credit to some younger workers. that might address some of the issues for young adults and two adults who don't have children. a noncustodial father could get that boost as well. i think that is an important part. i agree with the last caller. guest: the earned income tax was

very effective in shoring up low wage workers and there is a gap. oftenyoung man who are noncustodial parents. we passed the first earned income credit targeted at those individuals that were working at low wages and needed annexed her boost. i am glad to see both democrats and republicans talking about it. there are childless adults who are a lot of people. some people are poor and struggling. if we pass a change that benefits all of those people, will that change be sufficiently targeted or will it be a large expenditure without sufficient targeting?

host: george in kentucky, democrat. caller: i disagree with this notion of skills. corporate retail outlets all over the country, they would prefer people that they could control with mindless obedience. there is so much micro management from the corporate level. that is number one. when you do not have a good public sector like in large cities, we have pit poor districts against large districts. the poor district do not get sewage systems, public libraries, schools, parks. they get nothing. the well-off districts get what they need and then some.

the disadvantages grow over time. it is not resonating in better wages. guest: i am sympathetic for the comments about corporations. look at the chart i your screen. the median household is down. that is terrible. i believe we need a greater consciousness among corporations. customers, they're always pushing to lower prices. investors, which focuses on investment returns. and employees. that is who i think they are not caring enough about. much more focus to attention toward american corporations, which are now the largest

employers on their responsibility toward employees. a lot of benefits when to health care. moreully they can provide in wages and salary. focus on the second part of your comment. one of the things in the census data was that poverty is bad enough for people in general in the united states. it is worse for african americans and latinos, particularly children and young adults. part of that is living in communities where you don't get the quality of education and services. we look at the details on how

that plays out. they are less likely to have a calculus class or a college counselor. i think that is an important point to keep in mind. there are effects in terms of work and the economy and there are effects that are particular to local places. lindsay is in chicago. caller: i would like to make a comment. statistics point that the poverty started when one of reagan came in. look at the policies that were lamented. the minimum wage has a long-term detrimental effect on a so security check. people not making enough for the family and they have to be on food stamps. that is unacceptable.

wage.1980 minimum guest: on the second point, i completely agree with what you highlighted in terms of wage levels going in six or seven days and just working a couple of hours. some of those issues of scheduling are being addressed in the congress with her postals. the are postals have not passed yet. on the history, in addition to the problems over the last few decades, there have been times when we invested on the public side and times we did night. the work effort of individual people has increased over that time. half of the women were in the labor market in the 1970's.

now two thirds to three quarters of all mothers are working. of the lastriod several decades, we have had a big commitment to do more work, but we have had an economy that ihas undercut some of that progress. guest: we have had a big commitment in government expenditures. the overall spending for low income americans has not diminished over the years, it has grown. holding ronald reagan responsible for bad times now is difficult for me to comprehend. the 1990's were good in fighting poverty. we participated in welfare reform initiatives.

since 2000 or so, we have gotten away from what was clearly working. i look at the chart and i see the high points where poverty was at its lowest. there?what were we doing how can we get back to there? it was about rewarding work. we are not doing that in the right way. from ed is a republican north carolina. caller: good morning. experience personal that i would like to pass on. give me a couple of minutes. my wife works in a store that provides something in the medical industry. there are people in training programs that have vouchers

provided i the american people -- people like to say subsidies. in while the program goes on. later, they have a different voucher on a different program. it wasn't cut out for them. a gentleman had a story in walmart where a woman was in line. his wife started talking to a lady, commented on her $400 purse. she was dressed to the hilt. winning came time to pay for it, the ebt card came out. her comment was, "what do you care? it is a government money."

money andit his my everyone's money." i don't mean poor people should be stressed. the fraud and abuse. host: we get the point, ed. thank you. guest: the first point about the way it is not working well in the store were your wife works is an important one. when you look across the country, is less about the people than some of the pathways that the trading system works. there was a lot of discouragement or lack of success in providing training that was well linked to needed jobs and the needs of people. i mentioned the bipartisan law that congress passed, which

gives states the tool to focus in on training that will take long enough to bring someone where they need to be. i think there is lots of room for improvement. when i think about all the people i have known -- i'd -- people i talk to. people in the states where i work. what stands out for me is how hard people work to take care of their families. they're always going to be people and you need a good way to address fraud and technology has made easier. i want to underline that your values that you have of working hard and taking care of your family, that is what the people in the census numbers are doing. they are working, but they are

working really hard to take care of their families. it is not just a small number of people finding themselves in those circumstances. poor 40% of families are or near poor. i would think about those values that so many of us share as characteristic of those people. in --this tweet came in anti-poverty programs for 18 years. i could call myself a conservative as well. i don't think that is what is stopping us from helping poor americans. our economy is not growing rapidly enough and providing

enough job creation for people to take advantage of. not enough focus on getting people rapidly into employment. it is not the absence of employment -- people need to work if they had an opportunity to work more and their incomes would rise. it is not about being contemptuous on poor people but about being respectful of the taxpayer. we have lost sight of the fact that these programs to have the credibility with the taxpayers, they have to be viewed as being clean and fairly going to the people that are truly in need. programs rules have changed significantly.

we are getting the assistance in all of our ways to people who are truly in need. host: greg from kentucky, democrats line. caller: thank you for having me on. the programs are fine. i think they need to be left alone. for once, they just need to be left alone. i think we need to get back to real problems. get our energy costs down. the utilities are high and you can't even breathe. you cannot do anything. you cannot travel or work because the energy costs are so high. you got your gas and everything else. you are paying too much money for all the utilities.

that is why the poor people cannot move. host: thank you, sir. any comment for that caller? guest: you focus on the cost people face and the costs can be great when they are working. you highlighted energy. childcare. if you're thinking about a family that is working, they are trying to make sure their kids are well taken care of, both further education and to be able to work. that is another big piece of the puzzle. we made a lot of progress on. i would disagree a little bit with robert. the progress in the second half of the 1990's was also because we change the public programs to help low income working people with a lot more money to help

with child care and health insurance and also because we had a strong economy and less inequality. onhink that you're focused putting together the pieces of what somebody needs to keep moving forward is an important way of thinking about the program. host: are there a lot of working poor and the poverty figure we showed earlier? time, if you work full the percentage of poverty is less than 3%. it is not to say they are not struggling or low income. they are classified as that number. that is not the case.

there are sources of assistance that are not counted in that number. we didn't really talk about that, but the extent to which the measures sometimes overstates the material hardship of americans is true. earned income tax credit, food stamp benefits would bring 3 million, 2.5 million more people out of poverty if we counted them in the measure. the real problem is they are not working enough. they are working some, but not enough. i am not holding them accountable for it. i'm holding our economy and economic policies and public assistance programs that aren't encouraging and promoting more work and providing greater work opportunities. host: william is in glen rose, texas. you are on "washington journal," william. guestcaller: all right. i am in my 80's. when all these people get the country back to the 1930's, they are not going to like what they

see. these companies, they preach the big lie. they are not trying to develop jobs in the united states. they are developing them in china and mexico and all over the world. we are buying the products on the credit. the poor people don't have a chance because they don't work for minimum wage, they don't work. the big lie is when you get people back having scurvy stores like i had when i was a kid, ,here is no money for doctors people had opportunities and they could live or die. we ate roadkill, we ate anything that wouldn't eat us. got 10 gets back, we've times more people now. there is not enough fish and not enough possums.

there's is not enough road tilt of t -- not enough roadkill to feed the poor people. host: we will let your comments stand and listen to roberta in oklahoma. caller: i have a, and then a omment and that a question. in 1973, the minimum wage was was5, the largest salary $300,000. since that time, they have added one halfs to the top of 1% of the population, and ino zeroes at the bottom. and our economic policy that was triggered by the opec recession -- opec caused this imbalance. until we declare you can't

always bring the top salaries down except by taxation, it is time for the federal reserve bank to step forward and fund arrays of minimum wage to $70 an hour -- $17 an hour until the balance is achieved. and then you won't have to have all of these policies of giving away money and creating poor people and suffering and all that. i think you would have to stop some of the wars, too. for that is my comment. ok, we are going to let that comment stand because we have talked about minimum wage what of it. you look like you want to say something -- guest: the topic the caller is raising is an polity. i do it, in terms of being a poverty fighter, as a little bit of a distraction. i don't think it has contributed to improving the livelihood of low-income americans, and i think it has taken us away from

the focus on helping people get back into work. i think there are issues with regard to inequality and i mention to the corporate focus --allergies and wages salaries and wages. yes, but if we focus on that we lose sight of the real problem. are not problem is we creating enough opportunities and jobs and public assistance programs are not encouraging and promoting employment as much as we should. that would help more americans will stop if we focus on how rich they are, we will talk about it and make a lot of noise about it and we will make progress. -- we won't make progress. guest: i think inequality does matter because among other things it means that sometimes people who are making policy or thinking about choices and the preparation have a harder time imagining the lives of other people. i think it is crucial that we all understand how much we are in this together, and how much the challenges are shared. i think it is important in that way.

i think it is important because it makes moving up the ladder harder. somebody earlier expressed the view that still training doesn't really work because corporate bosses just want low-level people. it is not true of all the people who run companies. there are businesses who want talented employees to move up. but again, it is easy people are nother worldwhole not to think about it. i have not as pessimistic as the caller or robert about making progress about it. i will give the example of health care. just a few years ago it was unimaginable that somebody working in a low-wage job would be able to get health coverage for themselves, and right now that is true. people can. the numbers show it and the stories show it and that makes a difference in people's lives. i think it is important, and i think there are steps we can to resist imitating. persistently taking. censor youe not to

two. [laughter] jump out of your skin. host: that he is calling in from albuquerque, new mexico on the democrats line. caller: thank you, peter, thank you for the two guests discussing a subject that is so serious now. i'm tired of these people who call in with these radiant -- reaganesque welfare queen stories to the largest employer in our country right now, walmart, is the biggest welfare queen in our country. the use of americans in every state where there is a walmart -- millions of americans in every state where there is a walmart is picking up the tab for what walmart does not provide for its employees. we are picking up the tab for the health care, for food stamps because they pay these people so

little it is absolutely end of seen it he. obscenity.ely an this five-member board, the they are some of the wealthiest people in america. as far as other corporations go, they are sitting on billions and billions and billions of dollars right now, most of it is offshore because corporations just don't want to pay the taxes they should be paying into this country. host: all right, we got your point, that he. -- betty. olivia golden, when it comes to walmart are they a good corporate citizen, in your view? guest: i don't think i know enough to comment on corporate citizenship across the board. the caller's point about the consequences of low wages and part-time work hours and uncertain work hours, when corporations do that, it has consequences for the people that work there, it has consequences for the families, which means for all of us, and it has

consequences for taxpayers. the call for corporate responsibility is really important. so is helping on the public side with something like health insurance that shouldn't depend on whether you work for a good citizen. and wonderful treats in -- tweets in guest: well what one of the things to keep in mind, it in class we do a lot of work with employers to choose high road strategies -- paying workers enough, training, providing them with a belief. many low-wage workers cannot get a day off if they are sick or their child is sick. what is most important is that is that it gives you better stability. you don't spend time with turnover and churning. there is a business model that really works, that has higher

pay and better conditions for employees. i think we have to be countries of the decision-making process that businesses go through. it is not easy to open a business and to run a business, not easy to hire people and take risks that come with employing people and investing in a potential business opportunity. my view is that it might be better if we lived in a different kind of welcome but the fact is, it is a very competitive world, international global economy, and over many years, democrats and republicans have supported ways to supplement low wages through government transfer or. the things that -- government transfer programs. i don't object to that. in the absence of that we would have fewer opportunities, and we would have greater poverty, not less. it is important for policymakers in washington to be conscious and not idealistic of how hard it is to make decisions about growing a business and how every

additional job that they hire or decide you have is a commitment on their part that comes with risks. --want to make that risk < we want to make that risk less difficult, not more. that is what i worry about in america. i don't think we are making policies conducive enough to greater hiring by american companies. host: terry is in missouri. caller: yes, hi, i just wanted to make a quick comment about a couple of items. one is the ebt cards, the nutrition program. i believe mr. doar mentioned limiting sweets on those types of purchases on those cards. it is very expensive to eat nutritionally adequately. it is very expensive to have proteins and fresh fruit and

festivals as opposed to what a lot of groceries sell now, carbohydrates. foods, andepackaged they are much cheaper -- host: all right, we got your first point. what is your second? caller: second point is i totally agree with the caller running walmart -- regarding walmart. they really are taking advantage of the government as far as the programs that they don't offer. host: thank you, ma'am. we have discussed both of those issues a little bit. poverty in the u.s. is the topic. we will start with you and finish with olivia golden. final comment, poverty in the u.s. is it possible to alleviate? guest: absolutely. we can do a lot better than we

are doing now. we did better in the 1999 and 2000. the reason we're not doing anter is we are not creating apartment where opportunities are more prevalent than they are now and we are not requiring giving assistance programs so that they support and enhance work, not replace work. it is five years from the end of the recession. it is getting old to hear people say well, the recession was really deep. spent appoint we have not enough time on is the high rates of poverty among children and adults which we have had for death -- decades. getting to the place for young children is going to require work that is very doable. high rates of poverty for those groups have consequences for the whole country and for our future. orther among the callers viewers you yourself know

somebody struggling, people who are going to be the workforce in the next decade are growing up and struggling families. what we need to do is what one callers said,g -- keep the momentum going on the programs that work, and figure out how to take on some of the issues of low-wage work. i think there are lots of different strategies. we talked about some of them -- improving the minimum wage, education and training opportunities, and work on other conditions of low-wage work. host: >> tomorrow in washington journal, john fleming discusses airstrike on syria.

after that, steven horsford disk us is 2014 campaign issues. washington journal is live saturday at 7 a.m. eastern on c-span. a look at our primetime schedule on the c-span networks. starting at 8 p.m. eastern, remarks from iraq's president at the u n general assembly on the danger of isis. on c-span two, book tv with authors of books on al qaeda and the taliban. on c-span3, american history tv with programs on the u.s. presidency and decision-making. the 2015 c-span student video competition is underway. open to all middle and high school students to create a documentary on the theme "the three branches or you," showing or action by law the federal, judicial, or

legislative ranch has affected you and your community. for the list of rules, go to student kim.org. .org.udentcam theonight in prime time, values voters summit. featured speakers include ted cruz and rand paul. saturday night at 8 p.m., a national town hall on the critical and historical impact of voting. on q&a,ay at eight :00 washington post columnist sally quinn. c-span two, daniel green and william mullen, to operation iraqi freedom veterans talk about their experience in use ofsis, and the force. and on book tvs afterwards, pulitzer prize winning reporter chteltoll on his -- matt ri

on distraction technology and its impact on society. tonight at 8:00, how the president makes important decisions. author jonathan white on the role of the union army in abraham lincoln's 18 64 reelection. sunday afternoon, author annette oflap explores the evolution first ladies fashion. find our television schedule it c-span.org and let us know what you think about the programs you are watching. call us. e-mail us, or send us a tweet. join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook. follow us on twitter. ministerr today, prime david cameron recalled parliament from recess to consider whether britain should join the u.s. and other

countries and conducting airstrikes against islamic state targets in iraq. he propose joining the us-led military led operation which currently has the backing of britain's three major political parties. this portion of the debate runs two hours. >> order. order. we begin with the house motion to be moved formally. question is as only order paper. the eyes have it. we now come to the business of the house motion, motion number two as on the order paper. thank you. moved on behalf of the leader of the house. thank you.

business of is the the house motion as on the order paper. say i. >> i. no. >> the ayes have it. we now come to the motion regarding isil. the prime minister. >> thank you mr. speaker. i beg to move, that this house condemns the barbaric acts of isil against the peoples of iraq including the sunni, shia, -- the question is how to dismantle and ultimately destroy what president obama has called a network of death. there is no more serious an issue than asking our armed forces to put themselves in harms way to protect our country

, and i want to set out why we should do that. to our direct threat people? elementilitary necessary? is it necessary for us to take part? is it illegal for us to take part? will we be doing so with partners? and is very moral justification for putting lives of british men and women on the line? clear idea what an exit will look like and do we have a strategy to take us there. first, our national interest. is there a threat to the british people? the answer is yes.

isil has already killed one british hostage and is threatening to more. disruptedervices have six known plots in europe as inl as a terrorist attack australia aimed at civilians including british and australian tourist. a terrorist organization unlike those we have dealt with before. , crucifixions, the gouging of eyes, the use of rape as a weapon, the slaughter of children, all of these things belong to the dark ages. it is backed by billions of dollars and has captured an arsenal of the most modern weapons. in the space of a few months, isil has taken control of the territory greater then the size of great britain and has designs all the way up to the turkish

border. this is not a threat on the far side of the world. , we will face a terrorist caliphate on the shores of the mediterranean and bordering a provenmber with a determination to attack our country and our people. this is not the stuff of fantasy. it is happening in front of us and we need to face up to it. is there a clear and comprehensive plan? yes. it starts at home. as the house knows, we are introducing new powers. these include strengthening our passports,seize stripping british nationality and ensuring that airlines comply with no-fly lists. in all of this, we are being clear about the cause of the threats we face. as i said before, that means defeating the poisonous ideology

of islamic extremism by tackling all forms of extremism, not just the violent extremist. so we are banning organizations of hate and stopping people from inciting hatred in our schools, universities and prisons. some will say that any actions you take will further radicalize young people. i have to say this is the counsel of despair. the threat of radicalization is already here. young people have already left our country to go and fight with these extremists. we must take action at home but we must also have a comprehensive strategy to defeat it stream is -- defeat extremists abroad. >> to questions he has but to himself. how long will they wore last and when will mission creek start? lastw long will this war and when will mission creek start?

believe this will take months, not years, but we have to be prepared for that commitment. are notghtly, we contemplating putting combat troops on the ground. there will be troops on the ground, but they will be a iraqi troops, kurdish troops, and we should be supporting them in all the ways i will describe. in terms of mission creep, i will direct -- addressed are at the -- addressed very directly why we'rey speech discussing this today. >> i am grateful to the prime minister for giving way. he has said on a number of that wes in the house are combating poisonous ideology. will he commit to working with the mainstream muslim theseities to see

atrocities rejected and have a practical program to make this happen? >> i absolutely committed to doing that and we have to do that not just in britain, but around the world, and we should be clear that the cause of this problem is the poisonous narrative of extremism. whenever there are broken states, conflicts, civil wars, we see this problem arise, whether it is boko haram in nigeria, al qaeda in yemen or il in iraq and syria. we need muslims to reclaim their religion from this extremism. it was notable that president obama in his speech to the united nations singled out muslims in britain who said this is not being done in my name and we should give praise to those people up. let me give rate my friend. >> the problem is, having caused this mess in iraq, we armed the iraqi army, they ran away, and arms.ow has their

is his series lead to be contended that with airstrikes seriously to be contended that with airstrikes alone we can rollback this problem? requires is a comprehensive strategy including a well formed iraqi government and well formed forces because they in the end will have to be the ones to defeat this on the ground. where i disagree with my honorable friend, in the cause of how this came about, i would say that the two most principal causes of this problem are the islamic extremism, but the two principal causes are that assad has been butchering his own people and acting as a recruiting sergeant to the extremist, and secondly, with the malik e-government, we had a government that did not represent all the people of -- with the al maliki government,

we had a government that did not represent all of the people. missiles can kill terrorist but good governance will kill terrorism. we should have that thought front of wind as we debate this afternoon. >> they now know how to do it and will get full comment democratic support. it is absolutely essential. i think there is a lot more that needs to be done. .ny to discuss this directly we need to make sure the government in iraq is not just supporting the shia community, people inng together united country with armed forces that are respected by every part of that community. that hasn't happened yet. it is happening. i think president obama was

right to delay this action until we had an iraqi government with whom we could work with as a good partner. i will just make a little progress with my speech and i will take several interventions. as i said, we have to take action home and abroad. it must involve using all resources at our disposal. that meeting monetary efforts that britain is leading to help those displaced by the isil onslaught here in its diplomatic efforts as part of this international effort. at the united nations, we are leading the process of condemning isil and distracting finances and global consensus of preventing the movement of foreign fighters. this strategy also involves political efforts to support the creation of a new and genuinely inclusive government in iraq and to bring about a transition of power in syria that could lead to a new representative and accountable government that it

to could take the fight to iso- -- isil. military haveur an indispensable role to play. in a moment or two, i will turn to why. thank the prime minister for giving way. on this vitalore area of changing the nature of government in syria? all syriao be frank, is what iraq needs. it needs an inclusive come at democratic government that represents all its people. we have had our strategy in terms of that backing the moderate syrian counsel in working with others. i do think iran has a role to play here and i met with president rouhani new york to discuss this and other issues. iran can play role in helping

bring around better government and iraq.yria the jury is still out as to whether they will play a role. i will give way to my friend and i will make some progress. thee are all grateful for recall an opportunity to discuss this in this manner. was mentioned. they also mentioned the kurds and iraq army are fighting on the ground. given that last week the united states congress voted to support the free syrian army of early with weapons even that they are conducting a ground war in which we are not prepared to do, what the premise to say whether we're looking at whether we could give military hardware to the free syrian army because they have the people and just not the weaponry to take on either a sod and isil together -- assad and

isil together? >> as my friend knows, what we have done is support that syrian national coalition and the free syrian army with advice, training, and was nonlethal equipment. and not proposing a change to that today. let me address this issue directly. isil needs to be destroyed in syria and iraq. we support the action that has been taken in syria. i believe that is a strong case for us to do more. i don't want to bring in a motion to the house today in which there wasn't a consensus for. it is better for our country to proceed on the basis of consensus. in this action, there are many concerns about doing more in syria. i understand that. i do not believe there is a legal barrier that were we to

act or others to act there is a legal basis. but it is true to say the situation is more complicated than iraqi situation. there is the presence of the brutal dictator assad. we should be clear that we have a clear strategy for dealing backing the official opposition, building it up as a counterpoint to assad and working for a transition. needs isd, what syria a government that represents all people. >> does he accept that without the iraqi army being able to take and hold ground, there's a real risk that airstrikes will not only just prove it ineffective, but could be counted protect dave, especially --h casualties mounting could be counterproductive, especially with title ii's mounting. it could be that story spun.

>> i would disagree with my honorable friend on that. action has taken place by the americans and to a degree by the french. it has made a difference. lives have been saved. many minorities who otherwise would have been butchered. friend is saying do we need a better iraqi army on the ground? of course we do. because we quite rightly are not prepared to put troops on the ground, we should be working soh the iraqis and kurds they become more effective. we cannot wait for the and allow minorities and others to be butchered. andme take some progress why and military action is necessary before taking further interventions. i don't believe there is a realistic prospect of

degrading and defeating isil. we should be frank there is a military complex taking place. isil has taken territory and their butchering people in iraq. many are fighting isil. we have to decide if we will support and i believe that we should. it is vital that the international community does more to build the capabilities of legitimate authorities fighting extremism and along with our european partners play our role. our strengthening the resilience of military forces in lebanon and jordan. their return it and surveillance aircraft has been helping with intelligence gathering and logistics to support american attacks on isil and iraq. to be frank, the iraqi government want more direct assistance. foreign minister wrote the united council asking for military systems to support its

actions. him in new york, he reiterated that request to meet. the real work of destroying isil will be for the iraqi security forces, but they need military help and it is in our interest to give way to the foreign minister. >> there is a problem in iraq though we need to recognize it it is not just political and it is not just capability. there needs to be a well from the iraqi army to defend the sunni areas of the country -- army tom the iraqi defend the sunni areas of the country. our air strikes me to support a country that has the will to defend all of its own people. >> the gentleman is absolutely right. that is a conversation where. there is no doubt that this

prime minister is a change from the previous regime. they understand this point. frankly, we should be taught in our interactions with them. they want our help and one more expert tease and counterterrorism expertise to help them defend against these appalling car bombs in baghdad. we should give them help, this is conditional on you defending and protecting all of your people. that must include the sunnis in iraq as well. i will give way to my friend. >> thank you for giving way. the kurdish president is on record saying that they do not want british servicemen and women on the ground fighting the fight for them. they just me but equipment, training, and the air support. it prime minister will deliver that message to our prime minister and watching the situation via that sunni tribes, they need to take the fight to isil as well. spot friend is absolutely

on. my friend has been very frank and his requests. he said clearly, we need your help drive these people out of our country and out of the world . he has been frank about that. we are supplying equipment. we could do more to help the security forces. them tocourse we need help, that they need to see that they could be part of a successful iraq. that is why the involvement of other countries are so important . there are countries that should be encouraging the tribes to take on. you give way to my friend and i will take progress. >> thank you. i'm glad that the except that airstrikes cannot hope alone to be successful unless they are in" a nation with ground forces. yelling ground forces mentioned so far are those of the kurds and the iraqis.

what are other arab states proposing? surely those forces have to be sunni muslim ground forces. we need other arab countries to supply them. >> i think my honorable method -- friend makes an appoint point. we should tread carefully. we are proposing at the request of the legitimate iraqi government. it is supposed to represent all of its country. should be doing that rather than relying on provide sunnis to forces in order to deliver that affect. i think it is very important that we keep on the pressure. it is the iraqi government that should be representing its people. i will take more interventions, i promise. i want to answer this question -- whether it is necessary for britain to take part in this international action.

should we leave it to others? i do not believe that is the answer. there's vital work being done in terms of airstrikes. britain has unique assets that no other coalition ally could contribute. we have a unique surveillance and intelligence disabilities. it is well used to working. these are some of the reasons president obama and clear to me that amerco wants and to join the air action in iraq. i believe it is also our duty to in this international operation. it is about protecting our people as well and protecting the streets of britain should not be a task that we are prepared to entirely subcontract to other air forces of other countries. i give way to the honorable lady. >> thank you for giving way.

the former mi6 said that getting saudi arabia will be far more effective than bombing. why are we hearing from this prime minister about the solutions to this rather than reaching for military solutions that could undermine them? >> we are taking those diplomatic initiatives. we need all of those political moves in diplomatic moves to take place. they are vital. there's a part of this that requires a military solution. can play a role as well. let me give way to the honorable sentiment. >> i thank the prime minister. givehave contacted me and

voice to the fear of the consequences of action. isn't that the point and the reason that we are here that we call today? it is far, far worse. >> i think my friend is right. we have got to think of the consequences of inaction. if we allow isil to grow and thrive, there is no doubt in my mind that the level of threat to this country would increase. we have already seen isil murderers butchered innocent people in a museum in brussels. we have had plots in britain by isil. how much stronger will they be before we decide we need to take action? i give way to honorable gentleman. indeed these are murderous

acts. that is not the issue. we know that. is -- will that be effective in destroying isis? afghanistan -- no more success stories. are we going to embark on something that could last for years? comment on why this is difference than the decision the house made about iraq. the fact is this is about psychopathic terrorist that are trying to kill us. there isn't a walk on by option. there isn't an option of just hoping that this will go away. i will give way more p i promise

i will give way more. i want to leave plenty of time for other contributions. the attorney general has given his advice on the action have proposed to take. we have a letter from the un security council. there's no question that the legal basis for action founded on the request of the iraqi government. let me briefly address that we will be acting in the support of local partners. this has been a major problem. we have a substantial coalition in place.

happening --have been helping. even regional powers are publicly condemning the extremists. our differences with iran remain. terrorist and for new clue program -- that has to change, but we will not back out. but if the political leaders are program,-- nuclear that has to change, but we will not back out. let me give way to my honorable friend. >> given the consent from the iraqi government, can the reconfirmation of the rinse to protect from genocide that is on the table and capable of wider -- >> my friend is right.

there are variety of legal arguments that could be applied. if we were to react in syria, it would be collected defense against isil. he is right. i have said this in the house before that it is a legal base if you are reversing a humanitarian to test if he. let me be clear again. it is right where having this debate and the scope, if there was a moment and looked as if there could be an urgent humanitarian need for intervention, i would be prepared to order that intervention and come to the house and explain why. let me explain. we have a comprehensive strategy for action. we have a clear request from iraqi government and international law. we need to act in our own interests. we need to ask that is morally

right and we move into a new phase of action by asking armed forces to take part in international airstrikes against isil. i believe we should do so now. >> muslims have made clear it has nothing to do with islam. discussionseen with an islamic organization that represent's muslim states to see if any of them will be joining the international coalition? that promises it is oh wider widerion -- is a coalition. >> i think it is one of the most important things that can happen . muslim governments, islamic countries are coming out and condemning isil and explaining ofs is not a good bunch people acting on behalf of a

religion. it is a bunch of psychopaths who have perverted a religion and it is not being done it in -- it is not being done in that name. we want to see a stable and overtime a stable syria. we want to see isil degraded and destroyed. let me be frank we should not expect this to happen quickly. the hallmarks of this campaign would be patient and persistent and not shock. we're not deploying combat troops, but providing air power and support of local forces on the ground. no british or western troops will occupy iraq. many of the elements that will be needed for a long-term success, many of which i have set out very clearly today. let me give way to the member from the s&p. >> thank you. he has talked about the international coalition.

peshmerga fighters have taken a lot of the brunt of fighting isil. can you assure us all of the parties involved are in support of this? i have spoken to kurdish leaders and to the iraq prime minister. both have an frank they want our help. they don't want british combat troops on the ground unit they do need the arms and the ability to defeat this murderous terrorist organization. way.e give >> i'm grateful. i support the prime minister's motion. did i hear him correctly a moment or two ago? subsequentgive

support from the house? surely it is the other way around. >> the gentleman heard me right the first time around. need to takethe urgent action to prevent for instance the massacre of the minority community or christian demanded he, britain could -- community, britain could act if i believe we could effectively do that. what i'm saying is that i would order that and come straight to the house and explain. think the convention that has grown up in recent years is that the house is properly consulted and there is a proper vote. it is a good convention. if there was a critical british national interest at stake or if there was the need to act to

prevent he monetary catastrophe, then you could act immediately and explain to the house afterwards. >> i think it is good that the house debates before action happens. can you confirm whether he is asking the house to allow any presence of military -- british military in iraq? if so, in what role? >> the reason for choosing the words combat troops is important. were contemplating putting in helicopters to evacuate people trapped on the mountain, that would have involved british forces being in an area of iraq with the servicing and efforts and helping those helicopters. it would have involved british personnel. that is why we talk by british

combat troops. >> whether or not we are militarily involved in syria, there's no doubt that the fighting has been and is intensified and that means it is a humanitarian crisis. it will also intensified. what preparations are being made? the current ones need to be stepped up. who are they cooperating with to ensure it? >> i think the gentleman raises an important point.

we have got very advanced aid programs. more aideen providing across the border and are working with international partners, including increasing contributions to make sure that happens. i will take more interventions. what is your card is an inclusive iraqi -- what is needed is an inclusivei iraq -- inclusive iraqi government. the future of british prime ministers and governments, i suspect they will be standing here in dealing with this issue of extremism in different forms and in different parts of the world for many parts to come. isil sprung up quickly, but we see the mayhem caused by other group. it could be boko haram. there dealing with generational struggle caused by the perversion of one of the world's great religions, islam. i've no doubt the struggle is

one in which this house is more than equal. i give way. >> i thank the prime minister for giving way. you may will need to use ground forces at the end of the day. contemplating the use of british combat forces. i think it would be the wrong thing to do. the lesson to learn from previous conflicts is we should play the most appropriate role for us. it is for the iraq government and an iraq government -- army to defeat isil in iraq. it is for a proper and legitimate syrian government to defeat isil p at what we should be helping with is the aid and diplomacy and political pressure

and with unique military assets where they can help. for the comprehensive strategy, not ignoring the powers, learning the lessons, that is what this debate is about. that is what this motion is about. i give way. wording is careful carefully done to make sure we get support for it. for -- deweyplates really need to vote on the matter? we live in a robust democracy were this house of commons wants quite rightly in my view to see ministers at the dispatch box and defending their actions and -- the house of commons should be consulted in advanced. i have set out where i think there are gaps in that

convention. >> i thank the prime minister. which countries are supporting isil, including by producing oil and what is the british government and others going to do about it? is spot on.he lady there are number of things we need to do. we need to take action to tell the world that isil is actually selling oil to assad and making millions of pounds. american airstrikes have dealt with some of the so-called mobile oil refineries.

clearly there's more in venues to be done to persuade those that in the past might have backed organizations like isil. that was very much what was being discussed around the table at the un security council. >> i thank the prime minister for giving way. what is going on with international pressure to make sure funding is -- this is a well-funded organization apparently. my friend is right. >> they simply took the money out of the bank. it will be a long term squeeze

the has to be put on in this case. >> we must take a tougher line with key allies. they have a feeling terrorist for decades and continue to do so. i think we need to have this direct conversation with everyone in the middle east, which is the dangers of this sectarian groups. we need everyone to recognize sector of islam they are from, that terrorism breeds further terrorism. in the end, it comes back and damages their own countries and societies. it is inevitable that the shadows of the involvement hangs heavy over this chamber today.

the situation we face is very different. we are acting in response to a direct appeal from a sovereign -- offering government to help deal with this terrorist threat. it is a threat to iraq and britain. of ae acting as part coalition, 60 countries. all committed to rolling back isil however long and difficult that task might be. this is not 2003. you must and that for indifference or inaction. once again are inspirational armed forces will put themselves in harms way to keep our people and our country safe is a contribute to the bravery and service. the question is the motion on iraq. the coalition against iso-.

-- thespeaker -- against coalition against isil. >> mr. speaker, it it is important this issue was brought to the house and that he is committed to bring the decisions to the house as well. whatever side of this debate we are on will be conducting it with huge admiration for the bravery, spirit, and the duty displayed by our armed forces who act on the decision that this house makes. let us be clear the offset of the proposition today. it is about airstrikes against iso--- isil. it is not about ground troops and nor about u.k. military action elsewhere. it is a mission. let me say as we debate this, i understand the qualms of the uneasy that will be in this

undertaking that is in the house and in the country. those who advocate military action have to persuade members of the house not just that isil is an evil organization, but we should take military action in iraq. i want to do so by setting out the particular nature of the isil threat and the criteria we should apply to judging the case of military action. i want to say something about the world that i believe is directly relevant to this decision. also clarified the labor position with regards to politics. many are clear -- do not see any clear exit strategy. others say the politics is not right. many sunnis still feel alienated. military intervention will not

to be in doing. >> i understand that honorable gentleman's long-held portion on these issues. the point i will make is that there needs to be a comprehensive strategy. we aren't talking about the military only solution. it is about you military action and a wider, strategic action. i want to say something about the nation of isil. isil is not simply another terrorist organization geared we have seen the hostagetaking of british citizens. it is not just british citizens. him --hristians, fell fellow muslims, many different countries and many back on manying your -- backgrounds. anyone who disagrees with them.

it is relevant to the decisions that we make today. they separated men and boys from women and younger children. the men were driven away two different nearby locations where they were shot and killed. the women and children of the village working. did -- abducted and continue to be held by isil. .sil is murdering muslims to those who say that military action against them is somehow understandn islam, i anxiety, including communities in britain, but the truth is entirely different. it is muslims. themselves who are saying it --

leading british muslim scholars and recently wrote of isil -- "they are perpetrating the worst crimes against humanity...it is a war against all humanity." isil's ideology has nothing to do with the peaceful religion practised by billions of people across the world and by millions of our fellow citizens, who are appalled by their actions. >> the leader of the opposition mentioned hostages. david haines was brought up and educated in perth, and some of his family are constituents of mine. to the people of perth, david haines was simply a hero, and the more we find out about his remarkable life, the more appalled we are by his brutal and barbaric murder. the people of perth are planning a commemoration of his life, and i am sure that the leader of the opposition and the prime minister will want to join them and congratulate them on their efforts to ensure that this man is properly remembered. >> the honorable gentleman spoke with great eloquence on this

issue. in a way, it tells us all we need to know about this organisation that it would take hostage people who exist simply to try to help the innocent victims. of conflict all around the world. >> i am grateful to the right honorable gentleman for giving way and for his support -- this time -- for the government motion for intervention. given what he has said about the horrors of isil, if it is necessary for us to come back to the house and debate a motion to intervene against isil in syria, will he support it? >> i do want to deal with this very directly, if the house will give me permission. i want to be very clear about this. we will obviously consider any further proposition if the prime minister chooses to come back with one. let me mention three issues that concern me about the difference between iraq and syria. first of all, there is the question of legitimacy. there is a strong argument about

the legal base for action in syria under article 51. the point that i have been making in the last few days is that, in my view, when we are not talking about being invited in by a democratic state, it would be better -- i put it no higher than that -- to seek a un security council resolution. why? because that is the highest multilateral institution of the world and therefore it would be better to seek authorisation on the basis of that. there are two other issues in play in relation to syria. one, there is the question of ground forces. the point that a number of hon. members have made is that we cannot defeat isil by air power alone. in the case of iraq, the iraqi army and the kurds can conduct those operations. there is -- i put it no higher than this -- an outstanding question about who will perform

that function in syria. secondly, as the prime minister himself made reference to, there is a big outstanding question about the overall outcome that we are seeking in syria. the prime minister said that there is a clear strategy and plan in relation to that. personally, i think that a lot more work needs to be done on what exactly the route map is in syria. those are the particular issues that i raise in relation to syria. i want to make some progress with my argument, if the house will allow me. isil is not simply a murderous organisation. as the prime minister said, it has ambitions for a state of its own -- a caliphate across the middle east, run according to its horrific norms. and values. that is why i believe, and established in the first part of my remarks, that we cannot simply stand by against the threat of isil. in acting against it we need to learn the lessons from the past. we should be clear about this with the british people. that means a comprehensive strategy -- humanitarian and political, as well as military, and, crucially, rooted in the region. some of that work is under way,

but i believe that much more needs to be done. there is a reality that the house must face up to -- to make this alliance work, there is the need for military action as well to contain and help counter the threat of isil in iraq. that is why we are meeting today. in the second part of my remarks, to make the case for military action by the uk, i want to return to the criteria that i have previously set out -- criteria that learn from the past and judge whether military action can be justified. first, in any action that we take there must be just cause. i believe that isil does establish just cause on humanitarian grounds, which i have set out, and on grounds of national interest. on this point, the international instability created by the undermining and potential overthrow of the democratic iraqi state would clearly have implications for the stability of the region and therefore for us and our national interest. it would make it more likely that iraq would become a haven

and training ground for terrorism directed against the uk. secondly, military action must always be a last resort. again, i believe that this criterion is met. isil has shown that it is not an organisation that could or should be negotiated with. thirdly, there must be a clear legal base, to provide legitimacy and legal force for our actions. i support the motion today because we are responding to the request from the democratic iraqi state, and that is recognised in the un charter. >> as one who voted on 18 march 2003 against the war in iraq, may i ask whether my right honorable friend agrees that we bear a particular responsibility for subsequent events, and, therefore, a particular responsibility towards the

government and people of iraq? >> that is an important point. i shall come to it later, but let me say now that, while some people would say that our intervention in iraq means that we should not intervene in this case, i think that there is a heightened responsibility for us precisely because we did intervene in iraq, and -- with all kinds of implications -- the iraqi state that has emerged is partly our responsibility. >> does the right honorable gentleman agree that the government have a moral obligation to help the iraqi people in their hour of need -- an obligation which, like the deficit, this government did not create, but has to deal with? >> if i may say so, i think the honorable gentleman did himself no credit with that intervention. let me turn to the fourth test. this is important, because it is the hardest test of all, and we need to level with the house about it. we must believe that there is a reasonable prospect of success before we take the grave step of committing our forces. the aim is clear -- it is to reinforce the democratic government of iraq and prevent

the advance of isil, at the invitation of that government, and it is to do so by using international military air power while the iraqi army and kurdish peshmerga conduct a ground campaign. no one should be in any doubt that this is a difficult mission and that it will take time, but there is already evidence that the us action is having the effect of holding back isil. prior to that action, isil was advancing, with catastrophic consequences for the iraqi people. this is where there is a choice -- to act or not to act. both have implications, and both have consequences. in june, isil took mosul. failure to act would mean more mosuls, and more killing of the sort that i described earlier. i give way to my honorable friend. >> if the outcome is to be greater stability, and if it

requires the intervention and the support of neighbouring countries, it would have been quite good to hear more about turkey's attitude to arming the kurds? >> my honorable friend has made a really important point. it is incredibly important that we mobilise all countries in the region, and turkey is primary among them. we need to learn the whole lesson -- namely that there can be no solution without our engaging not just the people of iraq and an inclusive government in iraq, but the wider neighbourhood. let me now turn to my fifth criterion. there must be broad support in the region for reasons of legitimacy -- because this action must not be seen as some new form of imperialism -- and of effectiveness, because regional support is essential to the long -- term success of the mission. at the end of august, the arab league made a statement calling for comprehensive measures to combat isil, and we now see a regional coalition consisting of jordan, the united arab emirates, bahrain and saudi arabia and qatar, as well as other countries.

sixthly and finally, the proposed action must be proportionate. we must make sure that innocent civilians are protected. i know that strict conditions are in place to ensure that there is proper targeting, and that everything possible is done to avoid civilian casualties. having scrutinised those six conditions -- just cause, last resort, legal base, reasonable prospects, regional support and proportionality -- i believe that they are met. >> the right honorable gentleman has referred to a broader coalition. from around the world are setting out sections of the koran, making it quite clear that isil has nothing to do with islam and is an evil organisation which everyone around the world, including the muslim world, has a duty to tackle? >> the honorable gentleman is absolutely right. this is not a clash of civilisations. the vast, vast majority of muslims all around the world abhor isil and its activities.

>> i congratulate my right honorable friend and the prime minister on what has been said so far today. it is vital for the sense to be felt that the entire house is behind our troops when they are out performing in this way. my right honorable friend has spoken powerfully about the fact that this is not a war on islam, and we are all very conscious of the scars that remain from the past. will he say a little more about what he, as leader of the opposition, will do to ensure that our muslim communities here recognise that this is not a war on them, and that it is absolutely about protecting muslims. as well as people back here in the united kingdom? >> my honorable friend makes an incredibly important point. i will play my part -- as i am sure will he and other members across the house -- in setting out the case and explaining the basis of action, which is to protect innocent muslims. in iraq who are under terrible threat from isil day after day. that is why there is such urgency in this case. >> the prime minister argued

that this was a generational struggle, but only last year in this house, he passionately argued for action in syria. had he got his way then, what would the position of isil be today? would isil not be stronger? if the consequences were unforeseen over the space of a year, does that not show that our commitment should not be open -- ended, but should be back to be scrutinised by this house? >> the proposition last year was about chemical weapons in relation to president assad. that matter was dealt with by others. of course, the situation in syria remains very dire. i believe that we made the right decision last summer, but today is about trying to get the whole house supporting the motion before it. >> does my right honorable

friend recall that, fairly recently, this house and the international community were condemned for tolerating genocide in rwanda and then for tolerating genocide in sudan? given the evidence today of genocide, particularly against the kurds in iraq, it is no wonder that the british people are in support not just of him but of the motion before the house. >> my honorable friend speaks incredibly powerfully. in the examples he cited, many of us may feel that there was a case for intervention that was not taken up. these decisions are always incredibly difficult, but if we can help innocent people who are under threat of persecution, it is right to do so. >> my right honorable friend is absolutely right in supporting this motion, but may i press him on our role in the world and how it is perceived by people outside? this hokey-cokey approach to international conflicts concerns

many people who have just seen thousands of innocent palestinians murdered while we stood on the sidelines. will he confirm to the house that he will show the same commitment, and push for resources, to get a satisfactory conclusion in palestine? >> i agree that it is right to speak out on these issues -- and to speak out without fear or favour -- and to pursue the two -- state solution that we need. i want to move on if i may to the third part of my remarks. some people might accept the criteria that i have set out, but say that it is not our job to intervene because western intervention always makes things worse -- we must confront this issue, because it will concern not just members in this house but people in the country. i understand that argument, but i do not agree with it. intervention always has risks, but a dismembered iraq would be more dangerous for britain.

isil unchecked means more persecution of the innocent. if we say to people that we will pass by on this one, it makes it far harder to persuade other arab countries to play their part. members across the house have been saying that this must be resolved in the neighbourhood and that we must engage the region. we would have less moral authority to say that we want the arab states to play their part, if we say, "i'm sorry, but this has nothing to do with us. we won't intervene." finally, we should pride ourselves on our traditions of internationalism. being internationalist and not withdrawing from the concerns of the world is when britain is at its best. i want to speak now about the underlying reasons for wariness over action. the 2003 war in iraq. i understand why some who were in the house at the time will wonder whether this is a repeat of that experience. in my view, it is not, and it is worth setting out why.

first, as the prime minister said, this case is about supporting a democratic state. it is not about overturning an existing regime and seeking to build a new one from the rubble, which is a much harder undertaking. secondly, there is no debate about the legal base for action in iraq, as there was in 2003. thirdly, there is no argument over whether military action is a last resort. they are not people with whom we can negotiate. fourthly, there is broad international support, not a divided world, with all 28 eu member states and the arab league providing support, and five arab states taking part in action. fifthly, there is no question of british ground troops being deployed. i understand the wariness there will be in the house and in the country about whether this is a repeat of 2003, but on those five grounds it is not, and it

is demonstrably not. >> does my right honorable friend agree that our failure to reconstruct iraq properly after the war actually increases our responsibility to act responsibly and engage other partners in the region to create a more stable country for the future than we have seen over the past 10 years? >> i completely agree with my honorable friend about our responsibilities, and indeed our responsibilities to the people of iraq. i will not give way again. the late robin cook said this in his resignation speech on the eve of the iraq war -- "our interests are best protected not by unilateral action but by multilateral agreement and a world order governed by rules." this is multilateral action, prompted by a legitimate democratic state, and a world order governed by rules, if it is about anything, must be about protecting a democratic state,

which is what the motion before us is about. i believe that, although this is difficult, it is the right thing to do. there is no graver decision for our parliament and our country, but protecting our national interest, security and the values for which we stand is why i will be supporting the motion this afternoon. >> on a point of order, mr. speaker. you will have noticed that the house is very full. my constituents expect me to be able to get into the chamber and hear my prime minister. no such obligation rests on this poor man behind me. will you find a safe place for this camera crew, so that he can film without getting in our way? >> i am grateful to the honorable gentleman. as far as i can see, the camera crew is certainly not interfering with the business of the house, and everybody is safe. i am grateful to the honorable gentleman for his point of

order, to which i have responded. order. may i point out to the house that no fewer than 77 hon. and right honorable members are seeking to catch my eye, in consequence of which colleagues will understand my decision to impose, with immediate effect, a five minute limit on back bench speeches. >> i congratulate the prime minister and the leader of the opposition on the constructive and measured way in which they introduced today's debate. this intervention is different in two respects. for the first time, war is fought using social media as a tool. the power of the internet is becoming increasingly apparent. we have all been shocked by the slick propaganda.

for most of us, the first we heard of isil was through youtube. this is the world that we live in today. the second is the young age and radicalism of our opponents. albert einstein once said that old men start wars but younger men fight them. well, not any longer. the isil and al qaeda commanders are in their 30's and the old men are the refugees. >> my right honorable friend makes an important point. one of the most powerful weapons that is has been using is social media. what should governments around the world, like ours and like that of the us, be doing to ensure that social media are not used, that sites are blocked and that is is stopped from getting its publicity out into the public domain? >> i agree with my honorable friend. i think he has answered his own

intervention. i think the government should be addressing that and recognising that soft power is now a tool of war, and should be addressed very seriously indeed. i was saying that our opponents are young and radical. up against them are the slow, clunking democracies of the west and the civilised world. but these democracies are our strength. this building and our electoral mandate -- they give us a legitimacy that isil and similar rebel groups will never have, and that is what will ultimately undermine them. >> he makes an important point. an important part of all this, alongside the military action that i hope we will endorse today, is the soft approach -- the diplomatic record of the united kingdom in relation to many of the sunni tribes in the area over which isil has control. is it not important to recognise that isil, with its use of social media and its very strong media operation, is effectively an opportunist front for what

has been a civil war? we cannot negotiate with isil, but we must make sure that we negotiate with and talk to the people in the sunni community within the tribes in that area. >> i agree with the honorable member. indeed, he anticipates what i am coming to in my speech. the western world agonises about how to respond intelligently and responsibly to these violent threats. i congratulate the prime minister on the rational and measured way in which he has assessed the situation and on the leadership that he has shown. a coalition of the willing has been assembled. the response has been prepared. our thoughts are now with the men and women of the armed forces. this is not going to be an easy campaign. it is going to be messy, it is going to be untidy, and there will, i fear, be fatalities. but this intervention is the very least that a country such as britain and the united kingdom should be doing.

we are a world leader in the eu, in nato, and in the g8. we hold down a permanent seat in the security council in the united nations. we derive benefit from all these positions, but they also give us responsibilities, and we have a duty to act. i have to say, however, that it is of some regret to me that, while i recognise the politics, we are not authorising action in syria today. the border between syria and iraq has virtually disappeared. it is a sea of human misery. there is open, cross-border movement of people both legal and illegal, military organisations, innocent citizens, and homeless, terrified refugees. it is a seamless conflict over two countries covering thousands of miles and presenting a vulnerability in isil's stretched resources that we are not capitalising on.

>> will my right honorable friend give way? >> i will not, if my honorable friend does not mind. we have long encouraged the arab states to get involved. now they are, and the irony is that we are pulling our punches as they do. this is the first time that there has been an international coalition in syria, and we should be a part of it. the leader of the opposition said that it would be better if a resolution was tabled at the united nations before intervening. given that russia has already said it will veto such a resolution, it is incumbent on him to say what his position would then be. why the hesitation over syria? we will never end this conflict by turning back at the border. perhaps when the deputy prime minister winds up the debate, he could say what is the role for the free syrian army, which has just been given half a billion

dollars by the us congress to equip its fight. it has been fighting isis for months, and, like the peshmerga in northern iraq, it is fighting for its homeland. we are all agreed that air attacks alone are not going to bring this war to an end. isis will clearly go underground, and we will need forces on the ground to ram home the advantage that air cover provides. we all accept that there are not going to be british or american boots on the ground, but the peshmerga and the free syrian army are willing. they have strong contacts with each other and stand shoulder to shoulder in their exchanges. bolseter.ense to this means supplying funds and equipment to the free syrian army, which has shown itself to be a reliable partner over a sustained period.