EU Referendum: Civil Service Guidance

Liam Fox Excerpts

Monday 29th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

The hon. Gentleman makes a central error in his characterisation of the situation. No Minister is censored—far from it. Ministers are allowed to campaign against the Government position. It is for civil servants, therefore, to follow the Government position. After all, it is required by law that they follow and support the position of the Government of the day.

[Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)]

There is a serious constitutional issue here, which goes to the heart of House of Commons accountability. We ask Ministers questions and expect answers that are fully informed. How can those who send us to the House of Commons have faith in the answers we get if those whom we question purposely have information withheld by their own civil servants?

[Matthew Hancock]

I have a huge amount of respect for my right hon. Friend. That is why I will answer his specific point. The question is exactly the reason for prescribing this guidance only in respect of the in/out issue rather than more broadly. That is what the guidance says. This broad approach was set up by the Prime Minister in January, and then discussed and agreed in Cabinet on 20 February as the best way to take forward the position whereby Ministers could disagree with the Government position.

European Council

Liam Fox Excerpts

Monday 22nd February 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady makes an important point, which is that Britain has a strong voice in the EU to get these single markets completed. The declaration on competitiveness from the EU Commission is worth reading. She also points out that, if we were not there, not only would the EU continue to exist and have a very big impact on our lives, but it would probably head in a very different and more protectionist direction, and that would affect us, in many ways quite badly.

[Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will no doubt have been deluged with advice on EU law during his negotiation, so on the subject of ever closer union, can he give us a concrete example of a single European Court of Justice case that would have had a different outcome if the measures he agreed last week had been in place at the time?

[The Prime Minister]

Ever closer union has been mentioned in a series of judgments by the European Court of Justice, and there are two things in what we have agreed that I think will have an impact. Obviously, the most eye-catching of those is in paragraph 1 on page 10, which states that the substance of the agreements

“will be incorporated into the Treaties at the time of their next revision”

and will

“make it clear that the references to ever closer union do not apply to the United Kingdom.”

That is obviously a carve-out for us, but just as significant—and this is something that many other countries did not want—is the content of the next paragraph, which states:

“The references in the Treaties and their preambles…of creating an ever closer union…do not offer a legal basis for extending the scope of any provision of the Treaties or of EU secondary legislation.”

That redefinition of ever closer union is a fundamental change to the way in which the organisation has worked. One way to think of it is that there have been two threats to our sovereignty. The first came from treaty change passing powers from Britain to Brussels, but that cannot happen now because of our lock. The second is the use of terms such as “ever closer union” to make sure that the EU grows its powers, but that cannot be done now that we have that change. One of the reasons why the deal took 40 hours of all-night negotiations is that not everybody likes it. The deal is not meaningless words; it is words that mean something, that matter and that make a difference. That is why I was so determined to secure it.

UK-EU Renegotiation

Liam Fox Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd February 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I want the deal to be done and the security argument is an important one. When my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe was answering questions yesterday, he was asked whether it is consistent to say, as we do in the document, that national security is a national competence and to argue that Europe is important for security. I believe that it is. It is very important that we are clear that the core competences such as policing and our intelligence services are for this House and our Government to decide on, but of course there are ways in which we can co-operate in Europe to make ourselves safer, such as making sure that we know when criminals are crossing borders and making sure that we exchange passenger name records and the rest to keep us safe. That is why, when we opted out of the justice and home affairs powers, repatriating about 100 powers to Britain, we stayed in the ones that really matter in respect of keeping us safe. It is important to demonstrate that we are both maintaining national security as a national competence and working with our partners to keep our people safe.

[Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)]

First, may I say through you, Mr Speaker, to the Leader of the Opposition that I would prefer what he describes as the “drama” of the Conservative party to the tragedy of his Labour party any day?

Whether or not an emergency brake kicks in is ultimately the decision of the European Union, not the UK. The level of immigration at which it kicks in is ultimately a decision for the EU, not the UK. Even the level of benefits sent abroad is ultimately a decision for the EU, not the UK. Is it not clear that we are not sovereign in those areas of policy and do not have independent control over them? Ultimately, is not the decision in the referendum whether we want our own laws and our own borders to be determined here by ourselves or overseas by someone else?

[The Prime Minister]

I have great respect for my right hon. Friend. He explained very clearly on the radio this morning that he would be for leaving the EU, even without the renegotiation. He was very honest and frank about that. In terms of dramas and tragedies, I am sure that he will join me in echoing the old insurance advert by saying that we should not turn a drama into a crisis.

On the emergency brake, the European Commission has been absolutely clear in the documents that it

“considers that the kind of information provided to it by the United Kingdom shows the type of exceptional situation that the proposed safeguard mechanism is intended to cover exists in the United Kingdom today.”

Of course, I am all for maximising the sovereignty of this House and our Government, and our ability to do things, but we have said that we want there to be no more something for nothing, that we want a welfare brake and that we want to be able to deny benefits to people in full before they have been here for four years. This paper says that that can happen as soon as the legislation allows.

EU Council

Liam Fox Excerpts

Tuesday 5th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)]

I completely agree with my right hon. Friend on that point. However, the European Court has never defined “ever-closer union” but it has made reference to it 55 times in judgments since 1999. Legally, how would Britain be exempted from the concept of ever-closer union unless we were exempted from all such judgments—either those that might be made in future or those historic in nature?

[The Prime Minister]

Clearly, if we have a legally binding and irreversible approach that says that Britain is not part of an ever-closer union then the courts cannot use ever-closer union to provide a ratchet against Britain in future court judgments. It is an important matter. I accept that it is a symbol, but symbols matter in politics. Our politics is full of symbols. A symbol of being outside this ever-closer union speaks to the British belief that we joined a common market and not a political union, but, as I have set out, it does also have a practical application.

ISIL in Syria

Liam Fox Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)]

It is very important that the whole House is clear about what this debate is not about. It is not about provoking a new confrontation with Daesh, given that it has already confronted peace, decency and humanity. We have seen what it is capable of—beheadings, crucifixions, mass rape; we have seen the refugee crisis it has provoked in the middle east, with its terrible human cost; and we have seen its willingness to export jihad whenever it can. It is also not about bombing Syria per se, as is being portrayed outside; it is the extension of a military campaign we are already pursuing in Iraq, across what is, in effect, a non-existent border in the sand. I am afraid that the Leader of the Opposition’s unwillingness to answer the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) will give the clear impression that he is not just against the extension of the bombing campaign into Syrian territory, but against bombing Daesh at all, which is a very serious position to hold.

To understand the nature of the threat we face and why it requires a military response, we need to understand the mindset of the jihadists themselves. First, they take an extreme and distorted religious position; then they dehumanise their opponents by calling them infidels, heretics and apostates—let us remember that the majority of those they have killed were Muslims, not those of other religions; then they tell themselves it is God’s work and therefore they accept no man-made restraint—no laws, no borders; and then they deploy extreme violence in the prosecution of their self-appointed mission. We have seen that violence on the sands of Tunisia, and we heard it in the screams of the Jordanian pilot who was burned alive in a cage.

We must be under no illusions about the nature of the threat we face. Daesh is not like the armed political terrorists we have seen in the past; it poses a fundamentally different threat. It is a group that seeks not accommodation but domination. We need to understand that before determining our response.

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will know of concerns that Daesh fighters are leaving Syria for Libya in greater numbers. Does he believe that when we are tackling Daesh in Syria, we will have to confront it in Libya at some stage as well?

[Dr Fox]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I said, we have not chosen this confrontation; Daesh has chosen to confront us—and the free world, and decency and humanity. It is a prerequisite for stability and peace in the future that we deal with the threat wherever it manifests itself.

There are two elements to the motion: the military and the political. On the military question of whether British bombing, as part of an allied action in Syria, will be a game-changer, I say, no, it will not, but it will make a significant and serious contribution to the alliance. The Prime Minister is absolutely correct that some of our weaponry enables us to minimise the number of civilian casualties, and that has a double importance: it is important in itself from a humanitarian point of view, as well as in not handing a propaganda weapon to our opponents in the region. Britain can contribute: we did it successfully in Libya, by minimising the number of civilian casualties, which is not an unimportant contribution to make.

We must be rational and cautious about the wider implications. No war or conflict is ever won from the air alone, and the Prime Minister was right to point out that this is only a part of the wider response. If we degrade Daesh’s command and control, territory will need to be taken and held, so ultimately we will need an international coalition on the ground if this is to be successful in the long term. There may be as many Syrian fighters as the Joint Intelligence Committee has set out, and they may be co-ordinating with the international coalition, or be capable of doing so, but we must also recognise the need for a wider ability to take and hold territory. To those who oppose the motion, I say this: the longer we wait to act, the fewer our allies’ numbers and the less their capabilities are likely to be, as part of a wider coalition. If we do not have stability and security on the ground in Syria, there is no chance of peace, whatever happens in Vienna.

On the political side, our allies think it is absurd for Britain to be part of a military campaign against Daesh in Iraq but not in Syria. It is a patently militarily absurd position, and we have a chance to correct it today. But we must not contract out the security of the United Kingdom to our allies. It is a national embarrassment that we are asking our allies to do what we believe is necessary to tackle a fundamental threat to the security of the United Kingdom, and this House of Commons should not stand for it. Finally on that point, when we do not act, it makes it much more difficult for us diplomatically to persuade other countries to continue their airstrikes, and the peeling off of the United Arab Emirates, then Jordan and then Saudi Arabia from the coalition attacking Daesh is of great significance. We have a chance to reverse that if we take a solid position today.

This motion and the action it proposes will not in itself defeat Daesh, but it will help, and alongside the Vienna process it may help to bring peace in the long term to the Syrian people. Without the defeat of Daesh, there will be no peace. We have not chosen this conflict, but we cannot ignore it; to do nothing is a policy position that will have its own consequences. If we do act, that does not mean we will not see a terrorist atrocity in this country, but if we do not tackle Daesh at source over there, there will be an increasing risk that we have to face the consequences over here. That would be an abdication of the primary responsibility of this House of Commons, which is the protection and defence of the British people. That is what this debate is all about.

Syria

Liam Fox Excerpts

Thursday 26th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

That is the important issue. We have been very clear that our target is ISIL, not the regime. However, we will be helped, as I said in my statement, in our combating of ISIL if the Sunni majority in Syria continues to believe, rightly, that we think that Syria requires a transition away from Assad. Assad cannot, in the long term, run that country.

On Russian objectives, the gap between us has narrowed. Russia sees the danger of ISIL and is attacking them. We see the danger of ISIL and are attacking them. The difference is that Russia is still attacking the moderate Syrian forces that we believe, in time, could be part of a genuine transition in Syria that would have the support of all the Syrian people. We do have ways of deconflicting, and we are having discussions. I met President Putin at the G20. I think that the horrific attack on the Russian airliner flying from Sharm el-Sheikh will bring home to everyone in Russia again that this needs an ISIL-first strategy. That is where the greatest threat comes from and that is where we should focus.

[Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on setting out such a comprehensive approach and on stressing that it is an ISIL-first strategy. Does he accept that for the United Kingdom not to act is in itself a policy position that will have consequences, because the jihadists hate us not for what we do, but for who we are and what we stand for? Does he agree that we do not have the luxury of not confronting ISIL, because they have chosen to confront us? The question is whether we confront them over there or, increasingly, take the risk of having to confront them over here.

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend brings great clarity to this matter. Not taking action is itself a choice, and that choice has consequences. It is my judgment, and the judgment of those independent, impartial, highly trained advisers on security and military issues who take the same view, that inaction is the greater risk.

National Security and Defence

Liam Fox Excerpts

Monday 23rd November 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I think the best that can be said about that is the longer the right hon. Gentleman went on, the less he had to say.

Most of the right hon. Gentleman’s statement was spent talking about the importance of having troops within the UN, the importance of shipbuilding on the Clyde, the importance of investing in defence, and the importance of having high morale among our armed forces. Yet only two months ago, he said:

“Why do we have to be able to have planes, transport aircraft, aircraft carriers and everything else to get anywhere in the world? Why?”

Is that the same right hon. Gentleman who is now sitting opposite us thinking of all these uses for our armed forces, when just a few months ago he thought there was none?

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the police. Let me tell him that we are safeguarding investment in our counter-terrorism policing, and indeed increasing the capabilities that they have. There will be a full statement on Wednesday on all the spending decisions that we make. He might want to have a word with his shadow Chancellor, who very recently signed up to a proposal, at a time when we face this heightened security threat, to

“Disband MI5 and special police squads”

and to “disarm the police.”

The Leader of the Opposition thinks that they should not use their weapons; the shadow Chancellor thinks they should not have any at all. That is presumably what passes for a defence policy.

The right hon. Gentleman asked a series of questions. Let me answer them all. First, he asked how we set out the threats. We publish a risk assessment. The whole point of a national security strategy is to bring together all the threats we face as a nation—state-on-state threats, terrorism, pandemics, climate change and others—and set out in one place how we evaluate them and how we will respond to them. That is something that never previously happened.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about morale in our armed forces. There are no proposals here to reduce the proposals we have made on pay and increments in our armed services or to change the very generous pension arrangements. One of the best things for morale in our armed services is that those serving in our Army, Navy or Air Force and those who are planning to join our Army, Navy or Air Force can see that there will be a bigger Navy with more ships, there will be a bigger Air Force with more planes and people, and our armed services will be better equipped and supplied than they ever have been.

The right hon. Gentleman asked why we do not have human rights advisers in all our embassies. To me, advising on human rights is part of the role of an ambassador.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about learning lessons from previous conflicts. We are determined to do that. That is part of what the inquiry into the Iraq war should be about. However, we have not waited for that inquiry to learn the lessons. That is why, as I will explain on Thursday, it is so important that we bring together military strategy with diplomatic strategy, political strategy and development strategy. All those things should go together.

The right hon. Gentleman asked what lessons were learned from the Libyan conflict. Clearly we need to make sure, in such situations, that there are Governments and states that can continue, but I do not apologise for one minute for stepping in, with France, to prevent Colonel Gaddafi from murdering his own people in his own country.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the maritime patrol aircraft. It is right that we order them not only to protect the deterrent, which he, of course, wants to get rid of, but to make sure that we have greater safety, greater security and greater search and rescue functions.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the frigates. There is a real opportunity for Britain here. We are ordering at least eight Type 26 frigates, which have the full capabilities, but we will also look at developing a new multi-purpose frigate not only for ourselves, but, hopefully, to sell overseas. That opens the possibility that the number of capital ships in the Navy will go up, rather than down.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about ship workers on the Clyde. We have seen a great boost in naval shipbuilding because of the carriers. We want to keep that going, which is why two maritime patrol vessels will be built even before the frigates start being built.

The right hon. Gentleman told us a bit about his review. We look forward to that review, which will be carried out by Ken Livingstone—someone who has absolutely no idea about defence, but every idea about attacking hard-working Labour Front Benchers who try to do their jobs.

Finally, on a day when we are discussing a better equipped Army, a bigger Navy and a bigger Air Force, perhaps we ought to end with a quotation from the right hon. Gentleman who, as recently as August, said:

“Wouldn’t it be wonderful if every politician around the world instead of taking pride in the size of their armed forces did what”

others

“have done and abolished the army and took pride in the fact that they don’t have an army”.

I know that it is depressing for Labour Members, but they might as well know about it. That is the view of the Leader of the Opposition.

[Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)]

Some difficult decisions were taken in the 2010 defence review so that our armed forces would be able to grow in the second half of the decade. May I welcome unequivocally the purchase of the new maritime patrol aircraft? If I may remind the Prime Minister, there was a gap because of Labour’s catastrophic management of the Nimrod programme. I also welcome the purchase of more F-35s. What impact will the decision to man the two carriers have on naval personnel numbers? What impact will the decision on the F-35s have on the future of the Tornado?

[The Prime Minister]

Because we want to operate both carriers and because of the great amount of equipment coming through in the Royal Navy, this defence review will see an increase in personnel in the Royal Navy of 400 people. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right about the maritime patrol aircraft. We did have to take difficult decisions in 2010 to get rid of the black hole in the defence budget. The Nimrod project was over time and over budget, and it was not clear that we would have been able to get it back on track. We have therefore had a gap in that capability, but today’s announcement shows how we will fill it.

G20 and Paris Attacks

Liam Fox Excerpts

Tuesday 17th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks and for the tone that he is taking in trying to aim for greater consensus. Let me try to answer each question in turn.

Briefing on national security issues is available to all Privy Counsellors. If it is not offered, then Members should ask. The National Security Secretariat is there to help, and its role is particularly important during these times of heightened alert.

The right hon. Gentleman was right to praise the emergency services in France, as they did an amazing job. It is important to reiterate—and the Home Secretary did this yesterday—that ever since the Mumbai attacks and following the intelligence we had about the potential for marauding firearms attacks some years ago, a lot of work has been done in Britain to try to ensure that we would be ready for any such attack. I thank him for his support of the security services. He was right to mention the vital importance of our civil liberties. Indeed, they are part of what we are fighting to defend.

On policing, we protected counter-terrorism policing budgets throughout the last Parliament, and we will continue to do so throughout this Parliament, which is vital. Members will see the uplift that we are giving to our intelligence and security services. We will do what is necessary to ensure that we keep our country safe.

The right hon. Gentleman is right to condemn anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and right-wing extremism. All those issues are addressed in our counter-extremism paper. We shall be working with local communities, as he suggests, to ensure that they often lead in these debates. Some of the things that have been said by Muslim clerics and Muslim leaders have made a huge difference in recent weeks.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about borders. We do have the opportunity to carry out screening and checks at our borders, because we did not join, and we are not going to join, the Schengen no-border system. Once again, we can see the importance of having those border controls and using them to the best of our ability.

On the Syrian migrant programme, it is worth reminding the House that we are taking 20,000 Syrian refugees from the camps rather than from among those who have already arrived in Europe. That enables us to screen very carefully the people whom we take. There are two levels of screening, the first of which is carried out by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and the second by the Home Office, to ensure that we are getting people who are genuinely fleeing persecution and who would not pose a risk to our country.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the genesis of ISIL. The so-called Islamic State is one of the branches of this violent Islamist extremism that we have seen in our world for more than 20 years—I am talking about Boko Haram, al-Qaeda and al-Shabaab. It is worth making the point that the first manifestations of this violent Islamist extremism, not least the twin towers attack, happened before the invasion of Iraq. It is important that we do not try to seek excuses for what is a death cult, which has been killing British citizens for many, many years. He rightly asks about the process in Vienna. We are a key part of that, with our Foreign Secretary playing a very strong role. Indeed his work was commended by Secretary of State John Kerry yesterday.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned what I said yesterday about additional bombs and missiles only being able to go so far in Syria. Yes, that is right, Britain can do more, and because of our expertise and targeting, we could cut the number of civilian casualties when that action is taken. It would make a difference, but, alongside that, we also need a process that delivers a Government in Syria who can represent all of the Syrian people. We cannot defeat ISIL purely by a campaign from the air; we need to have Governments in Iraq and in Syria who can be our partners in delivering good government to those countries and in obliterating the death cult that threatens both us and them. Those things go together.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about cutting the supply of weapons and money. We are a key part of the international committee that is working on that. A large amount of ISIL’s money comes from the oil that it sells, not least to the Syrian regime. That is another thing that we would be able to address more directly if we were taking part in the action in Syria.

Finally, the right hon. Gentleman asked me whether I had met Justin Trudeau, the new Canadian Prime Minister. I did and I congratulated him on his victory. He is coming to London very shortly to see the Queen. I hope to have a meeting with him, as the Canadians will be very good partners on lots of issues where we work together.

On the economic slowdown, the right hon. Gentleman is right that the forecasts for global growth are lower than they were. Britain and America stand out in the advanced world for having more rapid economic growth, and we encourage others to take some of the steps that we have taken to deliver that growth.

Finally, the right hon. Gentleman asked about renewables and climate change. I have to say that the summit on climate change was disappointing. There is still quite a lot of opposition from some countries on putting in place the things that are needed for a good deal in Paris. Britain has played an important role in getting a good European deal. As for renewable energy, if Members look at what has happened over the past five years, they will see that there has been nothing short of a renewable energy revolution in Britain.

[Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)]

The continued reach and activity of ISIS represents a monumental international security challenge. The aim was to degrade and contain ISIS, but it is not contained, so I thank my right hon. Friend for what he said yesterday about the need to cut off the financial supplies to ISIS and to deal with the narrative over values, and for what he has said today about the need to join our allies in taking action over Syria, as well as Iraq. He is absolutely correct when he says that no military campaign of this nature has ever been won from the air alone, so we may yet require an international coalition on the ground of the sort that we required to remove Saddam from Kuwait. May I ask my right hon. Friend simply to rule nothing out and give no comfort to ISIS, because these people hate us not because of what we do but because of who we are?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his support. Obviously, we should be in the business of working out what we can do and what would make a difference, rather than what we cannot do; but it is my contention that, in the end, the best partner we can have for defeating ISIL in Iraq is the Iraqi Government, and that the best partner we can have in Syria is a reformed Government in Syria, without Assad at their head, who could credibly represent all the Syrian people and be a partner for getting rid of this death cult, which threatens the Syrian people, as well as the rest of us.

Syria: Refugees and Counter-terrorism

Liam Fox Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and for the way in which he put it. Of course I will be as forthcoming as I possibly can be. I have been forthcoming in this statement, and I will be in future statements, but I am restricted because of operational sensitivities and for reasons of national security. The police will have informed his former constituent’s family of what has happened. I would simply say that when we are dealing with people who are producing such a tempo of potential terrorist attacks—attacks on police and on members of the armed services, attempted attacks on commemorations in our country—which the head of MI5 describes as having no recent comparator, we have to take action. When we are dealing with people in ISIL-dominated Syria—there is no Government, there are no troops on the ground—there is no other way of dealing with them than the route that we took. I think that, for all those reasons, it was the right route.

[Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)]

I commend the Prime Minister’s emphasis on taking those who are in the Syrian camps. If we are genuinely to help refugees, this cannot simply be about helping the fittest, the fastest and those most able to get to western Europe. We must help those who are left behind in the camps, who are sometimes the most vulnerable. I ask him to go further, however, and to enable the United Kingdom to spearhead international efforts to create safe zones in Syria, so that those who are caught between the barbarity of Assad and the depravity of ISIL do not feel the need to flee their own country in the first place.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his support for taking people from the camps. We have looked at the issue of safe zones, and we will continue to do so, but if we are going to designate safe zones, we have to ensure that they are safe. That would involve a military commitment by Turkey, by America and potentially by Britain, and it would be a very significant commitment. We should focus on what the safe zones are supposed to achieve, which is to try to keep people in their homes and communities or, when they have left, to keep them in refugee camps rather than see them making the dangerous crossing into Europe. The thinking about safe zones is certainly the right sort of thinking.

Tunisia, and European Council

Liam Fox Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

First, I agree with the hon. Gentleman on the use of the term “Islamic State”. This is particularly offensive to many Muslims who see, as I do, not a state but a barbaric regime of terrorism and oppression that takes delight in murder, in oppressing women and in killing people because they are gay, so I raised this with the BBC this morning. I personally think using the term ISIL or “so-called” would be better than what it currently uses. I do not think we will move it all the way to “Daesh”, however, so I think saying ISIL is probably better than saying Islamic State, because in my view it is neither Islamic nor a state.

In terms of the numbers that other European countries have committed to relocate within the EU, these are people who have already arrived in Italy and Greece. They are planning to relocate about 40,000 people, although there was no agreement about who would take what numbers during what was a lengthy debate at the European Council. I would not, frankly, contrast that with the numbers we are offering to resettle from outside the EU. I would point to the very generous arrangements we have in place in Britain for giving people asylum. That includes many Syrians, many people from Iraq and many Kurds. That is what we have done and will continue to do, as a generous and tolerant nation.

[Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)]

The Prime Minister will be aware that jihadists talk about three types of jihad: jihad of the tongue; jihad of the purse and jihad of the sword. Does he agree that although we should address the threat militarily where we can, too few of the Arab countries are pulling their weight in dealing with a problem that is part of their region? Secondly, does he agree that we must cut off the financial flows to the organisation, and name and shame those individuals and states that are facilitating the further spread of fundamental Islam? Thirdly, during the cold war we understood the value of counter-propaganda. Is it not time to rediscover, not only across Government but among our allies, the need to speak with one voice in order to send out one message when dealing with the dangers and one message about the values and freedoms that have made us who we are?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course there are, in part, some military answers to what is happening. We need to crush ISIL in Iraq and Syria, but military action alone will not be enough. As he says, we have to go after terrorist finance and the terrorist narrative. That narrative is shared not only by the terrorists but, sadly, by too many who stop short of terrorism but who buy into the idea of a caliphate or the idea that Christians and Muslims cannot live together. Just as we had to confront the ideology in the cold war, we have to do so again now. In the end, I think that we will win because our values of democracy, tolerance, the rule of law, freedom and free enterprise are better values. They offer young people far more hope than going off and being part of a death cult that subjugates women, murders homosexuals and creates murder and mayhem across the world.