Downing St denies scrapping vote on Syria air strikes

It follows reports in The Times and The Guardian that the Prime Minister has decided against a second vote on the issue because he lacked MPs' support.

The government was defeated in a 2013 parliamentary vote on Syria - although MPs later approved air strikes in Iraq.

A Downing Street source told the BBC the reports were "complete nonsense".

It comes as a Commons committee warned that Britain should not take part in air strikes in Syria until the government presents a "coherent international strategy" to defeat IS and end the country's civil war.

The Foreign Affairs Committee said it was "not yet persuaded" ministers could address its concerns.

'Clear consensus'

A vote on extending RAF air strikes into Syria had widely been expected to take place in the autumn, although the prime minister had stressed he would only do so when he was sure of a "consensus" among MPs.

Mr Cameron was defeated in the 2013 vote on possible UK military action against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's government by 285-272.

Following that vote he said he would respect the decision, and ruled out joining US-led strikes - although it later emerged that UK pilots embedded with coalition forces had conducted air strikes against IS over Syria.

Reports suggested the prime minister has dropped plans for a second vote because he had failed to win the backing of enough Labour MPs to secure victory.

About 20-30 Conservative MPs were expected to rebel against their party in the event of a vote.

BBC political correspondent Ross Hawkins said it was widely acknowledged that Russia's bombing campaign in Syria and deep splits within Labour made any swift attempt to seek the consent of MPs for air strikes unlikely.

Russia began those attacks in September, with President Vladimir Putin saying the aim was to "stabilise the legitimate authority" of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Downing Street were adamant that any suggestion the prime minister had changed his position were inaccurate, with one source describing newspaper reports as "complete nonsense", Ross Hawkins added.

'Marginal effect'

A Downing Street source said: "The Prime Minister's position hasn't changed. He's consistently said that we would only go back to the House on this issue if there was clear consensus and that remains the case."

The government is "working closely with our allies to inject greater momentum into efforts to find a political solution, which we've always said will be the way to bring this war to an end", the source added.

However, some Conservatives told the BBC they were concerned by the reports.

One senior party figure said if the prime minister had decided not to seek military action, then ministers should to come to the House of Commons to explain their position.

Meanwhile the Conservative-majority Foreign Affairs Committee warned that any benefits of air strikes in Syria would be more than outweighed by risks of "legal ambiguity, political chaos on the ground in Syria, military irrelevance, and diplomatic costs".

It said:

While intervention would be welcomed by the UK's military allies, it would be likely to have only a "marginal effect" on the conflict

The UK risks "further reputational" damage unless it can make a clear legal case for action, with a UN mandate the clearest basis

It is "hard to predict" the consequences of tackling IS alone, and who might take their territory if they are defeated

Russia's recent intervention has "complicated even further" any proposed UK action

The committee said there was a "powerful sense that something must be done" given the "humanitarian and security catastrophe" in Syria, and agreed that defeating IS, also known as ISIL, was a "necessary goal" for the UK.

It added: "However, we believe that there should be no extension of British military action into Syria unless there is a coherent international strategy that has a realistic chance of defeating ISIL and of ending the civil war in Syria.

"In the absence of such a strategy, taking action to meet the desire to do something is still incoherent."

The committee outlined a series of points that should be explained before the government asks MPs to back its case.

International solution

These include how the action would improve the chances of success against IS, how it would contribute to a transition plan for Syria, and whether the UK has the backing of "key regional players" Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Iraq.

The MPs also want to know which ground forces would take control of land captured from IS.

They said the government was attempting to treat IS and the broader Syrian civil war as separate issues, saying they were "not persuaded" by such an approach.

Committee chairman Crispin Blunt said: "By becoming a full combatant in the US-led campaign at this stage, the UK risks needlessly compromising its independent diplomatic ability to support an international political solution to the crisis."

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn is opposed to military intervention, although not all of his MPs share this stance. Shadow foreign secretary Hilary Benn has not ruled out supporting air strikes and Labour MPs could have been offered a free vote, meaning they would not have been bound by the party line.

Responding to the committee's report, Mr Benn called for a "negotiated settlement led by the United Nations".

Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond said defeating IS and ending the Syrian war were "two faces of the same problem that Britain is working tirelessly with our international partners to overcome".

He added: "Britain remains committed to using every tool available to save lives and create the conditions for peace in Iraq and Syria."

(BBC)