We now move on to the urgent debate on UK air strikes on Syria, and I call on Leanne Wood to open the urgent debate. Leanne Wood.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. 'Mission complete'—those were the words of President Trump following the joint US, French and British air strike on Syria last weekend. An estimated 400,000 Syrians have been killed since the outbreak of war in 2011. More than 5.6 million Syrians have fled the country, according to the United Nations, and 6.1 million people are displaced internally. The Assad regime remains safely in power, and senior generals, including the Director of the Joint Staff at the Pentagon, have said that Assad retains the capacity to use chemical weapons after the attack. That does not sound like 'mission complete' by any measure.

I would like to address three central issues to this Assembly for Wales and our role in supporting and managing the awful consequences of the Syrian conflict. I would first like to seek to gain clarity from the First Minister for his stance on the weekend's air strikes. Secondly, I would like to discuss the material and financial cost of the attack, before moving on to discuss how we can redouble our efforts to offer a safe haven to those dealing with the fall-out from the Syrian civil war.

Before I move on to my speech proper, I'd like to reiterate my disappointment that Members of the Labour front bench felt that this was not a significant enough issue to warrant debate. Failing to support Plaid Cymru's calls for a debate on this issue is not only disappointing but bizarre, considering their colleagues' calls for greater parliamentary scrutiny on this issue in Westminster.

Yesterday, in First Minister's questions, I asked the First Minister a straight question: does he stand by his statement of support for the military intervention in Syria? His answer was typically evasive. Without a single vote being cast in any of the UK's Parliaments, on Saturday morning the First Minister gave his support to the Prime Minister and her decision to join the American-led bombing. I wanted to give the First Minister another chance, today, to answer that question. Without any parliamentary approval, does the First Minister stand by his statement of support for the Prime Minister and her air strike, as she claimed it was in the British national interest? And knowing now that the air strike has not mitigated the Syrian regime's capacity to use chemical weapons or change the course of the conflict, does he still support the action? But he's not here for this debate. I very much hope that this will be brought to his attention, and that he is able to answer these important questions in due course.

Tokenistic strikes do little to help desperate Syrian people who do not need more bombs to be dropped, but a solution to what is a political crisis and a human tragedy.

War is an expensive pursuit. Of course, for some, it is profitable. To see the shares of companies like BAE Systems rise at the prospect of further conflict shows the vile corporate structures that underpin the defence establishment.

British Typhoon and Tornado aircraft launched eight Storm Shadow cruise missiles. According to a 2011 parliamentary question, each one of these missiles costs £790,000. A crude calculation shows that we are looking at in excess of a cost of £6.3 million for the single strike undertaken on the weekend. This excludes the costs of the planes used to fire each of those £0.75 million bombs. When money is needed to pay our WASPI women a fair pension, the coffers are empty. When penny-pinching and cruel welfare reforms lead to people committing suicide out of desperation, we are told there's no money left. All of us here have lost valuable assets and services in the communities that we represent all because of austerity, yet when it comes to weapons of war, the British state seems to have very deep pockets. It is shameful that Westminster can claim that spending millions on bombing foreign countries is in the national interests while homeless women and men are told that there is no money to house them.

I'm ashamed to say that Wales's record on Syrian refugees remains disappointing. By dropping bombs on this war-torn nation, the British state may well be making more refugees at the same time as it's refusing to fulfil its existing obligations. Wales took just over 300 refugees last year, and I'm proud to say that it was a Plaid Cymru-led council in Carmarthenshire that gave home to the most—51—all from Syria. Yet some councils—the Labour administrations in Merthyr Tydfil and Neath Port Talbot—had not taken a single refugee by the end of last year. For shame. I implore the First Minister to speak to his party colleagues and get them moving on this issue. Here, in our national Parliament, in our councils and in our communities, we can save lives. We can offer these desperate people a safe haven. We have a moral obligation to act, and I reiterate to the First Minister that he must act now to ensure that Wales is doing all that it can to help people fleeing this terrible conflict.

To conclude, much more can be and must be said about this extremely complex and important issue. However, for now, I would like to close with the same sentiment with which I began: Plaid Cymru does not support this tokenistic American-led air strike on Syria, and I will once again remind Members that the path to peace is never paved with the weapons to war.

Can I first of all say I voted in favour of having this debate? The second thing is: I'm very pleased to find that Theresa May has found this infamous money tree in order to be able to fund the bombing of Syria. I also think, if we live in a parliamentary democracy, the Westminster Parliament should have had an opportunity to vote on whether we went to war and attacked another country or not, and we didn't have to work to Donald Trump's timetable. If you look at what we've done so far, we wanted to bomb Syria, which would only have helped Assad, which would have helped Isis. Then, we bombed Isis to help Assad. Now, we're back bombing Assad, which would only help Isis. It's almost as if our policy is, 'Can we keep this civil war going for as long as possible?'

We didn't bomb the site of the chemical weapons, thankfully. How do I know that? Because thousands and millions of people didn't die. Because if you bomb chemical weapon plants, the chemicals get put out into the atmosphere. The whole of the middle east could have been covered in whatever chemical weapons are meant to be there. 'Ah', you say, 'they haven't been mixed yet'. Well, let's say they haven't been mixed—when you bomb them, what do you think you're going to do with the chemicals but mix them? If you bombed a chlorine plant we would have created absolute havoc. But we seem to have a policy of bombing for peace. It reminds me of the medieval idea of bleeding people to make them better. Neither work. 

We really do need to intervene in Syria. It worked so well in Iraq and it's worked so well in Libya. After so much success—. Somebody once said, when we used to partition countries, 'It hadn't worked yet, but we hoped the next time would.' The next time never worked. Bombing countries never works. This can only be solved by negotiation, and we need to get peace in the middle east and we need to get peace in Syria. And the other thing is: there is a worse case happening in the world today, and that is Yemen: the unthought of, unspoken area, where children are dying daily, but because Saudi Arabia are involved, the west is frightened to get involved. 

I'm pleased to say the Conservative group voted to allow the debate to go forward this afternoon. I do think it is important that when motions of this severity come forward—or importance rather than severity, importance, come forward—that the Assembly does have the opportunity to express its view. I disagree with the view that the leader of Plaid Cymru has put across. I disagree with some of the points that the Member from Swansea East has made this afternoon. But, at the end of the day, we are a democracy, this is a debating Chamber, that is what our role is.

I do support the point that the leader of Plaid Cymru makes that, sadly, the First Minister hasn't turned up for another important debate today. And this is an important debate, because on the weekend, as has been outlined in the opening comments, the First Minister—. And Theresa May did not ring Carwyn Jones because he was Mr Jones from Bridgend. She rang Carwyn Jones because he was the First Minister of Wales and, thereby, he was speaking on behalf of the Government. I'm assuming that the endorsement that the First Minister gave, which I welcome, because I do believe that the actions undertaken by the Prime Minister were correct, were appropriate and were proportional—. But I go back to the point about the First Minister giving that endorsement, and his endorsement was, 'I offered my support to any intervention', and those were his words that he said, so, therefore, he was obviously speaking on behalf of the Government, and the Government vote here today, I assume. And I welcome that support, I do, but it would have been good to have heard from him here today as to his arguments and his points on why he was able to give that support, because there are colleagues in the Labour Party—Jo Stevens, for example, and the leader of the Labour Party in Westminster—who legitimately have made a point that they don't believe that the actions were legal. Now, I disagree with that point, but, as I said, we live in a democracy and points have to be made, and when you make the point you then have to explain why you are standing by the point that you have made and the commitment that you have made. 

As I said, from the Conservative benches, we voted to have the debate this afternoon. We as a group support wholeheartedly the proportionality and the decisiveness with which the Prime Minister has acted on a specific issue. It's not about regime change, but about the horrendous use of chemical weapons and the images that we have seen come forward out of Syria over the weekend—the weekend just after Easter—where children were screaming in agony, where adults were screaming in agony, and we know that at least 70-plus people died because of that chemical attack.

We know for a fact that in 2013 the UK Parliament voted not to militarily intervene to stop further acts of warfare or chemical warfare in Syria. Regrettably, that vote prevented, in my mind and many other people's minds, the proliferation of more chemical attacks in the intervening period up to last weekend. 

Mike Hedges rose.  

Yes, Mike. 

I would say that—[Inaudible.]—making that intervention stopped Isis getting control of the country. 

Well, that's a view you might put forward, but I've noticed this week that many people who voted to prevent those air strikes—specific air strikes, I might add, because it wasn't an open-ended mandate—specific air strikes, now regret that they took that decision. But history will show us what has been achieved, and what we do know is that Assad has continued to use chemical weapons indiscriminately against the civilian population to further his aims, his barbaric aims.    

I don't know if the Member was going to attend to this point, which—. He just referred to the vote in 2013, I think it was, and I commend David Cameron for calling that vote, and for giving Parliament the ability to decide this. Does he feel that the Prime Minister was right to take this action? He agrees with the action—I accept his point on that—but does he feel the Prime Minister's correct to take the action without recalling Parliament and having a vote in Parliament, as she had the opportunity to do on the Friday?

I do believe, in this situation, that she was correct in the action she took, because it was an alliance of France, the United States and the United Kingdom. It wasn't unilateral action. I think that, if it was unilateral action, it would be a completely separate issue and it would require, in my mind, parliamentary approval. This week, we have had votes in the House of Commons, which the Government has won. In fact, the official opposition walked away from those votes, which is remarkable given the heat that was expressed over the weekend about what the leader of the opposition was going to undertake when Parliament reconvened after Easter.

So, I just go back to the points that I have made: from these benches, we unequivocally support the proportionality and the aims of the airstrike that the UK Government undertook with France and with America. We support the ability of this institution to debate this very important point, and I do—I think it is worth emphasising again—bitterly regret that the First Minister is not here to engage in this debate and explain fully—it was welcome support, in our view—why he was able to give such an unqualified amount of support to the actions, given that senior figures within the Labour Party in Westminster have expressed serious doubts. I do believe that those questions deserve an answer, and this would be the forum to get those answers.

Thank you. Bethan Sayed.

Thank you. Firstly, I just like to say that I am disappointed by the Welsh Government's attitude to the call for this emergency debate in Leanne Wood's name. I have had many constituents and many people from across Wales wanting to know the opinion of AMs on this, and there has also been a petition in relation to the reaction by the First Minister in stating that he would support 'any intervention'—his words, not mine: 'any intervention'. I think that when a First Minister of a country, a nation, makes those comments without consulting us as a Parliament, then that is a very dangerous attitude to take. But I'm not surprised, in the last few days, that he has made that call.

I am also surprised because I asked the Cabinet Secretary today about what she was doing in relation to Syrian refugees, and that is an important part of how we deal with this particular crisis. For example, there are currently 5.64 million external Syrian refugees. Of these, only 500,000 are residing in refugee camps. There is a funding gap between donations received and donations required of over £2.1 billion to provide proper humanitarian care. There are 6.1 million people displaced within Syria, twice the population of Wales, and 13.1 million within the country require humanitarian assistance. I just wanted to reiterate these figures because they are staggering, particularly when we consider the pre-war population of 22 million. Syria is utterly devastated. It's economy has been almost entirely destroyed, as have substantial parts of its infrastructure. It's a country that, in many cases, is now a nightmare of destruction and death.

I understand that there is a frustration and conflict surrounding people's views on Syria. I know that, morally, people feel that there should be a response to the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime, but that should be done with diplomacy at the heart of it. I feel we should be focused on the consequences also of military action for the people of Syria and what it means for those people residing there and those who are made destitute as a result of war. Given that the country is in such a state of destruction, I fail to see the humanitarian benefits long term of military strikes. We have seen no strategic plan by the Prime Minister as yet and no exit strategy. Even if the military strikes were carefully targeted, more missiles flying over the heads of Syrian people, more explosions, more possibilities of reprisals as a result, the more and more they find themselves at the centre of world tensions between global and authoritarian nuclear powers.

We should also be aware that with the Russian Federation now firmly entrenched within Syria, the threat of military action from NATO countries is now not a realistic long-term deterrent, in my view. So, we need to plan for and facilitate peace talks and meet the humanitarian needs of the people of Syria. We must put in place a proper plan via the Department for International Development and offer Welsh assistance where possible, as we have done in previous circumstances—in Palestine, for example—in helping to cover the funding gap between donations needed and received. We must prepare to take more Syrian refugees, to fulfil and acknowledge our proper role in this crisis and so we can do something truly beneficial for the people of Syria. And, when we do take refugees, we must provide for them properly so they do not come to an alien country and find themselves without recourse to help or public funds.

Will you take an intervention?

I don't have much time, I'm afraid.

It's something that I've always noted, that those often most keen on a march to war for various reasons, particularly those gripped by British jingoism, are often those least keen to help those who are on the receiving end of military action. Those most opposed to Iraqi refugees after the Iraq war were those most in favour of war in the first place. So, I would urge those most in favour of intervention in Syria to take an honest position and provide an acknowledgement that military actions, even those that are targeted, will intensify the situation in Syria. 

I think it's a mark of shame on this country that the UK has steadfastly refused to take a proper share of Syrian refugees. I know Neath Port Talbot has; it was only last year that they didn't, so I'll correct that for you, David, even on a temporary basis. It is an abandonment of our international role that we have allowed some of our European allies to act positively in relation to Syrian refugees and integrated them integrally to our society. So, I would urge that, at least in this Assembly, we demonstrate a different view, which recognises our international obligations and urges a move to constructive and humanitarian-driven policies, and to finally help get a ceasefire.

I think I should echo comments made by many in the Chamber, even if we disagree on this issue. I would have liked for the First Minister to have been here, considering the fact that he made that decision. I'm not sure whether he consulted Cabinet, whether he consulted the Labour group in this Assembly, but he made that decision for us in our name, but I'd like to say here today: he did not do it in my name.

The Llywydd took the Chair.

Firstly, I wish to point out that UKIP has been the only major UK-wide party to oppose any military action in the middle east, including the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. We in UKIP acknowledge that the political scenarios in almost all the nations of this region are far too complex for western countries to get involved. Even where there has been some success, for instance Afghanistan, the gains are far too insecure for us to call it a complete success.

Whilst we would do nothing to aid Assad, we can completely condemn the action taken this week by the US and UK Governments. We accept that Assad's regime may not be acceptable to western democracies, but we must acknowledge that he is a democratically elected leader who, it appears, has a very large following in his country. Whatever his excesses are in ruling Syria, it has had nothing like the devastating affect on both its people and infrastructure that the war, in part aided and abetted by the west, has had: over six million people displaced and hundreds of thousands of civilians and troops killed.

The UK media has very much concentrated on condemnation of Assad's activities during this war, whilst completely ignoring the fact that the rebels, despite knowing that they have lost the war in specific parts of the military arena, have carried on fighting despite the appalling loss of life and damage to infrastructure, often leading to utter devastation, which this continued resistance has caused. Western leaders must accept a large degree of responsibility for both the deaths and devastation in Syria. This Assembly should condemn all military action in the middle east.

First of all, I want to say how glad I am that we are debating the strikes on Syria here in this Chamber. It seems really important to me that we are here at the heart of Welsh democracy and that we should be discussing this very important issue. The issues of war and peace are clearly not devolved, as the leader of the house made clear earlier in the day. Those decisions are made, clearly, in Westminster. However, I do believe that the people of Wales want to see us debating these issues of huge importance here in this Chamber. They want to hear what we think. And, of course, we have Syrians living here with us in Wales, and it is so important, I think, that we do give our views here.

I want to reiterate the point about these attacks taking place without a single vote being cast in Parliament. The Cabinet was called together. Why wasn't Parliament called? Parliament could easily have been summoned, and it makes you feel that Parliament was deliberately not summoned; that the timing was such that Parliament was ignored. Because there has been a convention built up of the Government in Westminster consulting Parliament on matters of war and peace. This happened when I was in the House of Commons and there was a debate and vote on the Iraq war in 2003, and that is one of the most significant votes that I've ever taken part in. The vote resulted in support for the the Labour Government of the day's position, although many people did regret how they cast their vote later on. But at least there was a debate, and I'm sure many of you know what is written on Robin Cook's gravestone:

'I may not have succeeded in halting the war, but I did secure the right of Parliament to decide on war'.

But as it turns out, there was no debate now. That right was not firmly decided on. But since then, there have been a number of occasions when Parliament has been recalled, and 2013 has already been referred to today.

After the airstrikes took place last week, on Saturday, I went to the Aneurin Bevan statue in the centre of Cardiff where there were many people who went there feeling a bit in despair and concern about what had happened, and lots of people gave their views about what they felt about the airstrikes. A variety of views came out, and one of the main reasons was the fear of escalation—the fear that this would lead to something more. Another concern was about the unpredictability of Trump, and the fact that we were there in this action with Trump, and his great concern about his habit of making policy by tweets. I was quite shocked today—we've talked today about the humanitarian help that is given by different countries—to read that, since last November, only 11 Syrian refugees have been admitted to the United States, and in the last six months only 44. That compares to 6,000 in the same period a year ago. So, where are the humanitarian feelings there from Trump in terms of not taking anybody in, but he's taken part in this action.

Today, lots of people have mentioned the Syrian refugees coming to Wales. Certainly in terms of the UK Government's action, I feel that we could have taken many, many more Syrian refugees, and I also think it's a huge matter of shame about the lack of action over unaccompanied refugee children after the Dubs amendment was passed—that we have sadly let down all those unaccompanied refugee children.

So, the fear of escalation, I think, is one of the major concerns about this action, and I think it's important to note what the United Nations Secretary-General said, because, of course, he said the use of chemical weapons is absolutely abhorrent and horrendous. I know we all absolutely agree with that. But he said,

'I urge all member states to show restraint in these dangerous circumstances, and to avoid any acts that could escalate the situation and worsen the sufferings of the Syrian people'.

I don't think there can ever be a military solution to this problem. A diplomatic solution is difficult, and we know that it has been tried, and it is very, very difficult, but we must continue to pursue a diplomatic situation, however difficult that must be. This is such a complex situation that airstrikes by themselves, bombing in this way, will never result in peace.

I’m pleased to participate in this important debate and I’m grateful for the opportunity to state my dissatisfaction with the decision taken by Theresa May, taken without consultation with Members of Parliament in Westminster.

May I pay tribute, first of all, to the powerful leadership of Leanne Wood in this debate and also congratulate Mike Hedges and Julie Morgan on their wonderful contributions this afternoon? As many have already said, it’s a very complex situation in Syria. We’ve all seen the appalling images of suffering in the country and this latest suffering is piled upon years of cruel war in Syria.

In my spare time, I’m a trustee of a charity called Christian Rebuild, which funds and supports humanitarian efforts through churches in Syria and other counties in the middle east. Heroic work is done by a number of organisations under heartbreaking conditions in that country, with suffering wherever one looks. It is endless and churches are working heroically to alleviate the suffering by providing services on the ground.

Very often, this Parliament is described as a talking shop, holding numerous debates—like every other Parliament, obviously—but in Westminster they didn’t have an opportunity to be a talking shop last week, as Theresa May took the decision to bomb Syrian targets without discussing it with the Members of Parliament in Westminster. And that is one of the main points of this debate this afternoon, as well as the intervention of our First Minister in that decision—or his lack of intervention, perhaps—because it is a complex situation on the ground in Syria, just like the complex situation in Yemen, where Saudi Arabia is promoting destruction there, without any criticism from Westminster.

To conclude, we do need to pause and think of a long-term future for Syria, as others have said, using diplomatic means. Thank you. 

I'm surprised but glad to be able to discuss this matter, because I've been raising issues to do with the Yemen and to do with Kurdistan constantly in this Chamber. We saw again, today, that the answer from the leader of the Chamber was that we don't talk about foreign policy. Clearly we do, because we're doing it now and I think that that's a great thing. 

I don't think the First Minister had any right to say what he said, speaking on behalf of the people of Wales, without recourse to this Chamber, and there's an empty chair there. The First Minister of Wales—we're debating this important matter for Wales and he's not here. 

Where is Carwyn?

Shocking. Shocking. Did he get legal advice? I'd like to hear from him.

There's a very easy solution, in my opinion, to adventurist, violent attacks overseas. Here he is—welcome, First Minister. I'll say it again. There's a very easy solution to adventurist, violent attacks overseas killing people. What we need, before any military action is taken on behalf of the people of these islands, is a decision by a sovereign Welsh Parliament, a decision by a sovereign Scottish Parliament and a decision by a sovereign English Parliament. If we had sovereign Parliaments in these islands, co-operating and sharing sovereignty on defence, then I'm sure that these awful decisions that result in death and destruction abroad would simply not be made.

And I'll say finally, the next time that I ask in this Chamber for a Government view on the Yemen, speaking on behalf of my constituents at the Yemeni centre where I was on Saturday, I would like the common decency of an answer from this Government.

We have, from time to time, discussed international issues. I know that, in the past, we've looked at the issue of apartheid in South Africa and Nelson Mandela. We discussed Catalonia not so long ago and I've certainly raised issues with regard to Ukraine, and in the last session, we did have discussions on issues of nuclear weapons. I do agree, though, that we have to be cautious about raising international issues here. We don't have direct decision-making powers or devolved responsibilities in some areas, but I do think, as a Parliament, we cannot ignore the impact that certain international events have and the impact on our constituents, particularly in the areas where people actually do want a view from us, particularly where there are very important moral and political questions that are involved. I think this is actually one of those.

Can I say, I don't raise any criticism of the First Minister on this? He's expressed a view that is one that is held by many people. It's not a view or an approach that I agree with, but I think this is an area where we do have to actually have respect for different views and opinions. The issue for me—the fundamental issue for me is this: the failure to engage with Parliament and to get an endorsement. And it is a trend—it's an unfortunate trend that's been taking place in Westminster of moves to bypass Parliament. The whole article 50 case was about bypassing Parliament. Issues around the withdrawal Bill are about bypassing Parliament. It is really with great sadness that this issue, when it arose, was again about bypassing and not trusting Parliament; not trusting the people who have been elected by the people of the UK to actually take these decisions. 

I can say that what I know about the missile strikes that took place, the targeting of specific chemical dumps and chemical capacity, had I been an MP in Westminster and had I been presented with the detail of a strike that was specifically focused on the destruction of those, I would have actually endorsed that. But, the fundamental point is that Parliament was bypassed and was not involved. It is such a dangerous political precedent, a dangerous road for us to go down, particularly in the current international climate we're in.

I went back and had a look at the actual statement that was made by Robin Cook, which established the convention that Parliament should be asked to endorse action, and I think it's worth reflecting on that. This is what he said: 

'From the start of the present crisis—' this is 2003,

'—I have insisted, as Leader of the House, on the right of this place to vote on whether Britain should go to war. It has been a favourite theme of commentators that this House no longer occupies a central role in British politics. Nothing could better demonstrate that they are wrong than for this House to stop the commitment of troops in a war that has neither international agreement nor domestic support. I intend to join those tomorrow night who will vote against military action now. It is for that reason, and for that reason alone, and with a heavy heart, that I resign from the Government.'

The point there was a fundamental point of principle that Robin Cook established and that is that ultimately in this modern world, this dangerous world we live in, democratic institutions have got to be the bodies that endorse going to war, that endorse military action. If we move away from that, we go down a very, very dangerous road. What does it say about democracy if the actions of a Prime Minister are based on, 'I cannot trust the people who are elected to take these decisions by the people of the United Kingdom, therefore, I will use an outdated prerogative in order to take action.' It undermines and pours contempt on our democratic institutions. It was an act of cowardice by the Prime Minister and that is why she was fundamentally wrong and why there is so much anger about, not the decision—not what has actually happened—but the decision and the way it was taken and the fact that the voice of the people of this country was bypassed.

I call on the leader of the house, Julie James. 

Diolch, Llywydd. I just want to be absolutely clear that the Government abstained in the vote to take forward this emergency debate, not because we don't think this is a very important subject—because clearly it is a very important subject of the deepest and most profound significance—but because we believe that international affairs and decisions about whether to launch military action against another sovereign nation are non-devolved matters and, as such, should be debated in the Houses of Parliament rather than here in the National Assembly.

As this debate has demonstrated, there are a large number of passionately held, strongly held and morally held views on this basis. They are held across the Chamber and all of their variety has been demonstrated in this debate today. We are glad that Members had the chance to do that and that's why the Government abstained in the Assembly making the decision. I'm very pleased to have heard everybody's views on that matter, but our position formally remains that it's not for this Government to comment on the actions of another Parliament and that the proper place to debate these matters is in the Houses of Parliament. Diolch.  

I call on Simon Thomas to close the debate.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. I'd like to thank all Members who've participated in this debate. It's been a serious debate, and I think the tenor of the debate, those who supported the action and those who don't support the action, has reflected well on the Assembly and the need to debate these matters on our hand that are before us.

Can I just start with the Government's view, just to get that kind of hare out of the way, in a sense? I can't believe we're told, just after we've debated WASPI, that we're not here to debate things that are matters for Westminster. I really cannot accept that. Hearing the passionate speeches—I wasn't in the Chamber, but I was outside watching—from some Labour Members in favour of women's pension rights, and then to say we're not here to debate Westminster issues, it's completely impossible to accept that. And the Government over the last few weeks has really disappeared up its own tail in its legalistic arguments around these matters. It's a serious point, even if I didn't use quite the right language to get it across. It's a serious point.

The First Minister himself has got a bit of a history here. He's here for the vote, I note. He wasn't here for the debate. But we have a First Minister who is prepared, on weekend after weekend, to appear on the media to make points that are important to the people in Wales, whether it ranges from the sacking of a Cabinet Minister to a response to a strike on Syria, and then tries to avoid any scrutiny in this Chamber on why he took those decisions, how those decisions were taken, and doesn't present himself to answer questions about that. [Interruption.] He's welcome to intervene on me now. He's welcome.

I'm here every Tuesday.

You are here every Tuesday. We're all here every Tuesday. But we're also making the more general point that you're here, and you spoke up in favour of the Conservative Prime Minister's actions in Syria, and we would expect you to be here to tell us why you did that. And I think a lot of your Labour Members would expect you to tell us why you did that as well.

It's not that we're the people who hold you to account about this. We are here on behalf of the people of Wales, and when the UK Government commits finances, as Leanne Wood put out at the start of this debate, commits our troops and men and women in the armed forces, from Wales potentially, and risks homeland security by taking offensive action abroad, which is a point that Jeremy Corbyn has made time and time again, then surely that affects us here in Wales, and we're right to debate that. We don't decide these things, but we're right to debate them because we send a message back to our constituents who, as has been raised by several Members—Bethan Sayed and Mick Antoniw as well, I think, made this point—several constituents have contacted us to say, 'Where's your moral fibre? Where do you stand on these issues?' You may not always please constituents when you're an Assembly Member dealing with Westminster issues, but they want to hear from you. So, from this Chamber we send back those messages, and we send back either our support or not as the case may be.

I think that two themes have emerged from this debate. First of all, there's the issue of whether Parliament should have been recalled to decide this, and the convention that Robin Cook so powerfully—and I was with Julie Morgan, as was Adam Price as well, in Westminster when he made his resignation speech, and when he made that famous convention. But as Mick Antoniw has set out, has reminded us, really, conventions are very strange things in the British constitution. They can be broken as well as set, and what we are concerned about here is that the Cook convention has been broken by this decision to take offensive action—not defensive action, but offensive action—in a foreign country as part of an alliance without recourse to Parliament. When you see conventions broken like that, what price the Sewel convention? What price our debates around frameworks and Brexit and everything that emerges from that, when we see that the Westminster Government acts in a particular way? So, there's that issue that I think has been very strongly put forward.

Then there's the action itself. I'd like to thank particularly Mike Hedges and Julie Morgan for their contributions on this. It crystallises in a simple question: do we today feel that the civilians in Syria are better protected, better looked after, have a safer future following this strike? [Interruption.] An intervention from a sedentary position says possibly they are. I don't accept that, but it's an argument to make. But I think the majority view in here, I sense, would be that we don't really accept that. So we need to ask: what has this offensive action been taken for? Well, it's really been taken for geopolitical reasons. It's been taken to support Trump, to look like that we are in association with Trump. When that dead hand of Trump went onto Theresa May's hand and he led her down the garden path—that's where it started, this thought that we have to associate ourselves with a very erratic American foreign policy. Now, whatever you thought of the neo-cons in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I didn't think much of them—. [Interruption.] In a second, if I may. I didn't think much of them. It was clear what that foreign policy was. The difficulty was, of course, they didn't have any policy for what happened to the countries after military intervention, but it was clear what the path of military intervention was. I don't think we see that from President Trump and, therefore, I don't think that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom should be associating herself with such an erratic foreign policy. I'll give way to David Melding.

I have to say, from my reading of recent events, it was the French Government that was insisting that a response to the use of chemical weapons was required and they were prepared to take unilateral action. That's where the force for this intervention came. 

I've heard something similar, and I think we have a different problem with President Macron and what he's trying to project in terms of the French status here. And I won't go down the route that's been suggested to me sotto voce there. But, if that is the case, then surely wiser heads should have prevailed on President Macron. He could not actually have taken unilateral intervention in Syria. I know they have a history there, I know they have offensive positions there, but, in effect, that would have been extremely dangerous, as, I think, David Melding realises, and I think the Russians would have felt very differently about a response to an unilateral intervention by France, rather than what eventually persuaded—. The fact that four countries came together enabled this, in a sense, to happen, and we shouldn't have given our name to it; we shouldn't have allowed it to happen.

It has been a serious debate. I think the general points around whether we debate enough some foreign policy that does effect on our citizens—Yemen has been mentioned; I would add Afrin and the attacks of Turkey in Iraq to this as well, because that is also something that impinges directly on families and refugees that are here in Wales. We can't debate them every time. Yes, it's Westminster that decides these issues. But, from time to time, we have to do a very simple thing. We have to be the Parliament for Wales, we have to be the Parliament that reflects what's being debated on the streets and what's really concerning people. Sometimes we're not able to answer all those questions and sometimes we're frustrated perhaps by what the First Minister does or what other members of the Government do on our behalf. But the quid pro quo about that is that we must be allowed to debate this and must be allowed to at least voice our concerns and make them very clear. I'm very grateful for everyone who has spoken—I thought it was a decent debate and a good debate and I think those who have participated in it will be able to at least tell their constituents and those concerned about offensive military action, and any potential future military action—. Because, having set a precedent, we have to ask ourselves what happens now if there's a limited release of chlorine gas in one part of Syria or another use of a particularly offensive kind of weapon. Having had that, at least we are now better positioned and better understand our fellow Assembly Members' positions, but also, perhaps, asking ourselves exactly how we stand on these issues.

That concludes the urgent debate.