Key John: Ministerial Statements — Islamic State Conflict—Government ResponseText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeKey John: Ministerial Statements — Islamic State Conflict—Government Response[Sitting date: 05 November 2014. Volume:701;Page:634. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):Allow me to take just a couple of moments firstly to thank the House for what I think was a very constructive debate. I think the situation that we face and the threats that we face from the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) warrant the careful consideration that the House has given it this afternoon and the mature and intelligent debate that people have added.Let me give parties an absolute assurance that the select committee debate will literally be that—an opportunity to test out the proposed changes that the Government is making. As we have said they will be narrowly focused and as I think a number of speakers have pointed out they are appropriately set. We acknowledge that the 48-hour issue is something that needs to be carefully considered and carefully monitored.The point really around the 48 hours—if I can make this point—is simply that it does take a little longer to raise a warrant not because the Attorney-General is not available to sign it in his capacity as the Minister responsible; it is because the commissioner takes a very long period of time and rightfully so to very thoughtfully go through a warrant. So when the commissioner turns up he—as has been the case with Sir John Jeffries and now Sir Bruce Robertson—actually spends an appropriate period of time making absolutely sure that that warrant should be raised. So the only point here really is that sometimes that process—if by chance of the way of information that came to us we were to hear something that we felt we needed to act on very very quickly that is the rare and exceptional circumstance. And really unless the SIS were absolutely convinced that warrant could be raised it would be ridiculous for the SIS to actually go on an exercise of gathering information because they would have to destroy it. They would not be able to use it. Actually I think it would damage their reputation if we started having the SIS going out and saying that they had constantly been undertaking this 48-hour surveillance. But look I think it is one of those things Parliament should kick around and we will take those discussions in good faith. So that is really the main issue there.In terms of the final point I would simply make this point in relation to the Government’s suggestion of what we should be doing on the ground in Iraq. I share the view with those who say that in the end the situation in Iraq has to be resolved with the Iraqis. It actually has to be resolved with a Government that recognises not a secular response to this but an inclusive response. Ultimately unless the Sunnis the Shi’as and the Kurds are listened to and they feel as if they are included a long-term solution in Iraq will never be found. It will not matter how much military effort you put in it will not resolve it.So the Iraqis have to fight their own battles and actually they have to find a diplomatic way through. But it will be necessary ultimately to combat the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and that is clearly on display. We saw that yesterday when ISIL essentially executed 322 people—women and children. We cannot let that happen unanswered. The Government is trying to take a careful but measured response. But I think putting our SAS in on the ground as some sort of killing machine would not work as a long-term solution. I think in the end Iraq has to be the owner of its own long-term problems. We are here to help but I do not think we can fight its battles for it.