ISIL: Iraq and Syria
Debate between Lord Hammond of Runnymede and Andrew Love(9 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hammond
No. To make the position clear, we have always said that we have not ruled out the possibility of extending British military action in the form of air strikes into Syria, but that we would need to see a clear military case for doing so. In other words, we need to be able to make a contribution that would add some significant value to the coalition effort. What I said was that my understanding of the current situation is that there are plenty of strike assets available for use in Syria. The US as coalition lead is not short of ability to strike targets in Syria; what it is short of is properly reconnoitred targets that we can strike safely without fear of creating collateral damage or civilian casualties. The need at the moment is for more ISR—intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance—not more strike assets.
Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
Returning to the humanitarian crisis in and around Kobane, the Foreign Secretary is right that an estimated 178,000 refugees have crossed the border into Turkey, but many were seeking sanctuary in Kobane and are left there under threat. Given the sensitivities in the relationship between the Kurdish community and the Turkish authorities, can the right hon. Gentleman reassure us that he or other Ministers have had conversations with the Turkish authorities to ensure that they will be up to the problems created by a humanitarian crisis, should it occur?
Mr Hammond
I understand that an estimated 20,000 civilians remain in Kobane. The Turks have an excellent record of accommodating refugees crossing their border. They have accommodated hundreds of thousands of refugees, and the great majority of the population of Kobane has already evacuated the city, mostly across the border into Turkey. Should the remaining population choose to leave the city, I have no reason to suppose that they would be unable to do so via Turkey.
Afghanistan (NATO Strategy)
Debate between Lord Hammond of Runnymede and Andrew Love(11 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State says that the operational model under which troops work with Afghani forces has not changed, and he recognises that there are differences with the American model. What reassurance can he give the House that our operational model is not placing our troops in unreasonable danger?
Mr Hammond
I can reassure the House again that everybody, both in the Government and in the military chain of command, is focused on force protection—that is, protecting the security of our service personnel. We do indeed have a different model from the Americans, and if I may say so the British Army is very proud of the fact that it does things differently from our larger American cousins. We pride ourselves on finding different ways to tackle the problems we face, with different levels of engagement. If I may make a generalisation in characterising the way the British Army tries to do things, we try to get closer to the people and lower down the command structures, and we try to be more embedded than the Americans sometimes appear to be. That is our special niche approach and capability, and we have shown time and time again that it can be effective.