Tag: Bernard Jenkin

  • Bernard Jenkin – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Bernard Jenkin – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Bernard Jenkin on 2015-10-22.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will make an assessment of the average net benefit per household of the UK’s membership of the EU.

    Mr David Gauke

    As the Chancellor of the Exchequer has noted, the best outcome for the UK economy is that we achieve major economic reform of the EU. The Prime Minister is focused on success: he believes he can and will succeed in reforming and renegotiating our relationship with the EU, and campaigning to keep the UK in the EU on that basis.

    The Confederation of British Industry and British Chambers of Commerce have both come out to say they support the reform agenda the Prime Minister is seeking to deliver.

  • Bernard Jenkin – 2022 Parliamentary Question on Missile Attack on Poland

    Bernard Jenkin – 2022 Parliamentary Question on Missile Attack on Poland

    The parliamentary question asked by Sir Bernard Jenkin, the Conservative MP for Harwich and North Essex, in the House of Commons on 16 November 2022.

    Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)

    I thank my right hon. Friend for making it so clear that it is irrelevant whose missile it was and that the state of affairs is the responsibility of the aggressor: Putin’s Russia. In that context, can he use this incident to amplify to our allies in Europe, and to some of our colleagues in the Government, that Putin’s Russia is not just at war in Ukraine, but at war with us? His hybrid campaign—cyber-attacks, assassinations, sabotage of critical national infrastructure in European countries and, of course, the energy war—is against us. Unless we defeat Russia in the war in Ukraine, it will be a defeat for the west. Therefore, we must galvanise ourselves and put ourselves on the right footing and in the right frame of mind to ensure that the Ukrainian people prevail.

    James Cleverly

    My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point about the multiple things that are at stake in this conflict. We have seen military lives lost, civilian lives lost and, sadly, in ground that has been ceded by the Russian military, what appears to be evidence of widespread and systematic human rights abuses. Those are the things that we are defending against, but in addition, we are defending the UN charter and the concept of adherence to international law. As he rightly said, we in the UK have been the recipients of cyber-attacks and attacks on our homeland that we have attributed to Vladimir Putin and the Russian regime. All those things are at stake all at once. We have to defend ourselves against the full range of threats, and he is absolutely right to highlight that.

  • Bernard Jenkin – 2022 Speech on Levelling Up Rural Britain

    Bernard Jenkin – 2022 Speech on Levelling Up Rural Britain

    The speech made by Sir Bernard Jenkin, the Conservative MP for Harwich and North Essex, in the House of Commons on 9 November 2022.

    As a Member of Parliament for a very rural constituency, albeit one in the home counties, I see all too clearly how our system of government tends to focus on the problems and needs of urban society in the UK and tends to neglect rural communities, which are so important to sustaining those urban environments. I therefore welcome the debate, and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on securing it.

    Rather than issuing a shopping list on behalf of my constituents, I am going to say something a bit more general about how we design, or do not design, rural policy in this country that will affect levelling up. We have had too many changes of DEFRA Ministers. I mean no offence to the new incumbent who will reply to this debate, but those Ministers have had differing priorities, and have experienced difficulty in holding other Departments to account for the effects of their decisions on rural areas. Local stakeholders are left feeling disengaged, and there is confusion among those who look after our rural areas, who tend to be the people who work there. Levelling up will not succeed unless this changes.

    The House might be aware that I have long taken an interest in the need for Whitehall to develop a greater capability for strategic thinking in order to address the huge challenges that we face as a country, in domestic and environmental policy as well as foreign and security policy. I was Chair of the Public Administration Committee and then the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, and we did three inquiries on this topic over a period of nine years. I continue to take in interest in the subject with an informal group that held a conference at Ditchley Park recently, attended by the Cabinet Secretary.

    Rural policy is crying out for a long-term strategic approach that will be sustained on a cross-party basis and so remain stable. It is slightly unfortunate—well, it is nice for us that there are not many Labour MPs cluttering up this debate, but it is unfortunate that there is not more engagement from them—[Interruption.] There is one Front-Bench spokesman, and I hope he will rise to the—

    Sir Oliver Heald

    There’s a Whip there, look!

    Sir Bernard Jenkin

    I think this counts as an intervention, Madam Deputy Speaker. It should be added to my time. I hope that the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) will rise to the occasion.

    The Ukraine war has exposed how vulnerable the global food supply system is to disruption. We cannot rely on our ability to buy food cheaply on the global market. Given today’s labour shortage in agriculture and the impact of natural problems such as avian flu, we must expect more serious shortages and even more acute price rises this winter. Food security is fundamental, but it is frequently neglected and should now be addressed by the Government. In passing, I would add that the Rural Services Network recently reported that the cost of living crisis is worst in rural areas. Food and energy price increases are already putting rural food banks under huge strain. Brightlingsea food bank in my constituency is extremely well led and co-ordinated by Win Pomroy and offers incredible support to the most vulnerable people, but let us be clear that this is a fire engine dealing with a crisis on behalf of our constituents. I am sure that every Member will want to support their local food banks.

    The main point, however, is that the changing nature of life in rural communities is outpacing the ability of our relevant institutions and policy processes to adapt and stay fit for purpose. Rural areas need a responsive, adaptable policy making and strategy process to handle the complexity caused by a combination of the increasingly rapid and profound changes in the wider world and the competing demands that we place on our countryside. These include the need to optimise food production, improve food security, reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, increase carbon sequestration, adapt to cope with climate change threats such as drought and flooding, enhance the wellbeing of the whole UK population by improving leisure and supporting access to the countryside, and improve conditions for wildlife and biodiversity, leaving a better natural environment and landscape for future generations.

    In coastal constituencies such as mine and that of my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon, who opened the debate, there is also a need to rewild our coastal waters, revive fish stocks and restore saltings and seagrass and kelp forests to revive their massive capacity for carbon sequestration. I recommend a book by my constituent Charles Clover of the Blue Marine Foundation entitled “Rewilding the Sea”, which was launched in the House of Commons yesterday. It is incredibly ambitious, but it is important for the whole country to reconcile these often competing demands. It is not only essential but well within our grasp to achieve it. Governments must, however, take the trouble to work with rural communities across the UK rather than prescribing for them, which is how most rural inhabitants see their situation today. Rural communities, in their turn, need better processes to make their voices heard in Whitehall, and to ensure that Whitehall draws on their unique local knowledge and expertise in formulating and delivering policy.

    DEFRA’s forthcoming environmental land management scheme—ELMS—replaces payments from the EU common agricultural policy, and it is due to be fully implemented in 2024. Its success is crucial to the effective functioning of rural policy and levelling up. I am afraid that the handouts from the Government for levelling up are a sticking plaster. What we need is a compressive approach to the rural economy. During its current trial phase, ELMS has been taken up by only a tiny percentage of farmers because what it offers is not very attractive to farmers. DEFRA needs to work closely with individual farm businesses to ensure that ELMS becomes fit for purpose.

    Sir Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)

    That is precisely why the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee is starting a report on the implementation of ELMS and how it could be delivered more effectively.

    Sir Bernard Jenkin

    I am delighted, and I will recommend that a friend of mine submits evidence to the Committee. I will refer to his work later.

    The Government need to empower and support farmers to undertake a wide range of practical routine tasks that are currently the responsibility of national agencies but that those agencies are unable to deliver because they do not have local expertise and knowledge. For example, the Environment Agency used to clear watercourses annually on lowland floodplains, but it has now abandoned the practice, resulting in disastrous flooding on what is often the most productive agricultural land in the UK. Farmers could be paid to do the work, subject to effective regulation.

    Local groups should also be encouraged to take charge and work in collaboration with each other, and with the appropriate central and regional authorities. For example, the encouragement of wildlife is frequently focused on transforming, flooding or wilding separate individual locations. It would be far more effective to recruit farmers and landowners across an area to collaborate on creating wildlife oases linked by wooded, hedged or specially planted corridors, for which they could be appropriately reimbursed.

    Now is the time to improve the policy delivery process by harnessing local knowledge and ability in conjunction with scientific expertise, bringing them together with the responsible Government bodies. The top of the civil service should work on enhancing cross-departmental governance processes in Whitehall, including by repairing Whitehall’s broken policy and strategy-making mechanisms. I can vouch that permanent secretaries are keen on this.

    From the bottom up, we need to encourage pilot projects that, if successful, can be scaled up and applied nationwide, appropriately amended to local conditions. One such pilot is being developed in south Cumbria, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), by local farmer and businessman John Geldard, whom the hon. Gentleman is giving appropriate support. Mr Geldard is best known for championing the sale of high-quality local produce in supermarkets. Spurred on by the damage done by Storm Desmond, by the pandemic and by the current inflationary economic threat, Mr Geldard has built a multiskilled team that is now addressing a range of challenges with increasing success. As part of this project, for example, he has a senior policeman improving local policing.

    Tim Farron

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this point. The area Mr Geldard farms in the Lyth valley is often subject to flooding, which is a reminder that sometimes we need to invest in infrastructure to allow good-quality agricultural land to operate as good-quality agricultural land, otherwise we will not be able to feed ourselves as a country or to do the good work that is needed on biodiversity, of which Mr Geldard is such a good example.

    Sir Bernard Jenkin

    I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

    The policing initiative is being led by a retired local police officer, and it is transforming the countryside’s ability to police itself and to deal with rural crime more effectively. I have been trialling such initiatives in my constituency, too.

    We are not scrapping all the regulations. Of course, there has to be regulation. Some of the rhetoric has been overtaken by politics. Our population may be overwhelmingly urban, but England and the whole UK sees its countryside as its shire, embodying an ideal of harmony between humankind and nature. This national feeling is a force to be reckoned with, and Governments who trifle with it do so at their peril.

  • Bernard Jenkin – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Bernard Jenkin – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Bernard Jenkin on 2014-06-25.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether the speech delivered by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in New York on 25 June 2014 represents the policy of the Government.

    Danny Alexander

    I recently visited the USA in my capacity as Chief Secretary to the Treasury, where I delivered speeches to audiences in New York and Washington on 23rd and 25th June respectively.

    Transcripts are available on the Treasury website: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/chief-secretary-on-investing-in-the-uk and https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/chief-secretarys-speech-to-the-centre-for-transatlantic-relations.

  • Bernard Jenkin – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    Bernard Jenkin – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Bernard Jenkin on 2014-05-07.

    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, appointments to which public bodies and offices to which Ministers make appointments are not regulated by the Commissioner for Public Appointments, by appointing Minister.

    Mr Francis Maude

    The public appointments that are subject to regulation by the Commissioner for Public Appointments are governed by legislation – the Public Appointments Order in Council 2013. This lists the public bodies that fall within the Commissioner’s remit.

    The document is available to view online at:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/public-appointments-order-in-council

  • Bernard Jenkin – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    Bernard Jenkin – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Bernard Jenkin on 2014-05-07.

    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, what criteria are used to decide which public bodies and offices are regulated by the Commissioner for Public Appointments.

    Mr Francis Maude

    The public appointments that are subject to regulation by the Commissioner for Public Appointments are governed by legislation – the Public Appointments Order in Council 2013. This lists the public bodies that fall within the Commissioner’s remit.

    The document is available to view online at:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/public-appointments-order-in-council

  • Bernard Jenkin – 2022 Comments on the Dismissal of Kwasi Kwarteng

    Bernard Jenkin – 2022 Comments on the Dismissal of Kwasi Kwarteng

    The comments made by Bernard Jenkin, the Conservative MP for Harwich and North Essex, on Twitter on 14 October 2022.

    The appointment of Jeremy Hunt as Chancellor is a wise choice. He is trusted and respected across Parliament. We must now be calm. Rash talk of ditching the PM, or calls for a general election, will not calm the financial markets.

  • Bernard Jenkin – 2022 Tribute to HM Queen Elizabeth II

    Bernard Jenkin – 2022 Tribute to HM Queen Elizabeth II

    The tribute made by Bernard Jenkin, the Conservative MP for Harwich and North Essex, in the House of Commons on 9 September 2022.

    On behalf of the constituents of Harwich and North Essex, I rise to pay tribute to Her late Majesty, whose whole life was the greatest example of public service we shall ever witness, whose kind heart, sharp intellect and huge wisdom were such a gift to the nation, and who had love in her soul for everyone and a serenity which even now calms the nation in these troubled times.

    She inspired so many good causes, but I single out one: the Commonwealth—in 1952, a mere eight nations—which she led from being an emerging relic of a lost empire to a network of nations representing 2.5 billion people in the networked world in which we now live. Just one of her achievements, but what an achievement. What a legacy for future generations, including, may I say, the Commonwealth Youth Orchestra, whose foundation she supported and about which she spoke to me with such passion, knowing that we both had such interest in music.

    Her devotion brought her to every corner of the kingdom, where she would show her humour and humanity. In 2004, when Ivan Henderson was still the Member of Parliament, she came to Harwich to commemorate the 400th anniversary of the town charter. Her programme included seeing the historic carvings in the town jail, but when the late Andy Morrison, the mayor, announced, “You will now be taken to the jail, your Majesty” a pall fell over the royal party. He attempted to rephrase the invitation, but Prince Philip just retorted, “That wasn’t much better!” and she threw back her head and roared with laughter.

    Later that day, as she stepped into the crowd on Harwich quay, she said to the mayoress, Pam Morrison, “My dear, don’t let me miss any children.” A three-year-old boy was duly lifted over the barrier. He gave his flowers to the mayoress at first, but Her Majesty, unfazed, chatted to the boy and charmed him. He saw her take the little bunch of flowers into her own hands, and she carried them for the rest of the tour.

    She combined global leadership, such principle and dedication with such humanity and care. She has gone to the light, who some call God, who inspires us all. God rest her soul. May he comfort all those who were closest to her. God save the King.

  • Bernard Jenkin – 2002 Speech to Conservative Spring Forum

    Bernard Jenkin – 2002 Speech to Conservative Spring Forum

    The speech made by Bernard Jenkin, the then Shadow Secretary of State for Defence, on 23 March 2002.

    Recently I attended the Annual Dinner of the Armed Forces Parliamentary scheme – a scheme, which aims give MPs first hand experience of the armed forces. They put us in battle fatigues and take us out on exercise.

    The Prime Minister graced the dinner with his imperial presence. Surprised to see me, he asked: ‘What are you doing here?’

    I said, “Prime Minister, I want to learn about the armed forces. Soon I’ll know more than your Secretary of State.”

    The Prime Minister put me down with a quip. ‘That’s not difficult!’

    Think about that! That is a measure of the Prime Minister’s real confidence in the man responsible for the lives of our servicemen.

    Under this Government, Britain is now committed to a series of open-ended deployments, putting further pressure on our already stretched armed forces. Mr Blair has been dotting them around the globe wherever it makes him feel good. We should not devalue the gold standard of our armed forces in this way.

    Labour wants our Armed Forces to be a ‘force for good’, yet they have little understanding of what it takes to maintain the quality and readiness of the best armed forces in the world.

    We should be making sure our commitments are matched by our capabilities – it is government’s responsibility to square that circle. You only get what you pay for. Over-committing our forces not only tries the patience of the armed services and their families. It erodes their essential fighting capability.

    And look what they are doing to the front line. Britain’s defences are paying an increasingly intolerable price.

    Incredibly, since British troops were first deployed to Afghanistan, Labour has announced a whole series of cuts.

    · An entire Tornado air defence squadron – axed. The very same squadron put on standby after 11th September to defend the skies over London.

    · The Royal Navy’s ENTIRE force of Sea Harriers– axed. These are same Harriers played a key part in winning back the Falklands. Until a few days ago, they were due to remain in service until 2015. This leaves the Navy with no airborne air defence.

    · The axe is falling on Royal Navy ships.

    HMS Fearless – withdrawn a year early:
    HMS Sheffield – mothballed:
    HMS Monmouth – stuck in dock because there is no money for her maintenance programme.

    The army is 7,500 men short – but there is a new Labour solution to that; simply reduce the target size of the Army, so we need fewer men to meet that target – and that’s what they have done!

    This week, the government announced that Britain is to send 1,700 Royal Marine Commandos to Afghanistan to fight in the war against terrorism. Let there be no doubt that we support the principle of this deployment. This is a very grave responsibility: our forces are the best – they deserve better leadership than this Labour Government.

    Just look what Labour tried to do. They tried to make the announcement of the largest single deployment for combat operations since the Gulf War as though it was just routine.

    Considering that this is arguably the most dangerous mission that our forces have taken on for 20 years, it is unbelievable that the Government should fail to offer Parliament the right to debate it fully.

    That was not just a snub to Parliament, or even just a snub to the people Parliament represents. As Michael Portillo said during the debate:
    ‘when our soldiers are being put into such extreme danger, it is a grave discourtesy to them to suggest that the sacrifice that they offer the nation is not worth three hours of debate in Government time’ (Hansard 20 March 2002 Col 352)

    4-5 Commando Royal Marines are undoubtedly some of the finest troops that anyone will find on this earth. They are trained in mountain warfare. They are ideally fitted to this task. And they know they must defeat our enemies—those who threaten our own people in our own country and the peoples of our friends and allies.

    But it is not disloyal or unpatriotic for Parliament to require explanation. That is Parliament’s job – but we had to drag Defence Ministers to the House of Commons to answer concerns expressed from all sides of the House. And the Prime Minister was too busy fighting his own backbenchers about foxhunting, to turn up to a debate about committing to troops to action.

    This episode says everything about Mr Blair’s real sense of priorities.

    Iain Duncan Smith set his clear priority for defence last week. His paper, called A Race Against Time, explains how ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction are proliferating, and destabilising western security. He sets out why and how Britain must confront the growing missile threat. Few politicians in Europe understand the link between 11th September and the threat of weapons of mass destruction. This is why Britain should support the missile defence systems President Bush is offering Europe.

    Instead of helping to galvanise other Governments in Europe to face up to the new threats and instabilities of the post cold war world, the Government’s post 11th September consultation paper on defence does not even mention the word ‘missile’! Labour continues to run scared from its CND MPs and activists.

    This weekend Mr Hoon is in Spain at a meeting of EU defence ministers. What is his priority? He’s gone back to the EU’s defence agenda. Labour promised there was no such thing as a Euro Army. But this week the Spanish defence minister actually said:

    ‘We have formed, we are forming that European Army.’

    Having championed the EU Defence Policy, they have lost control of the agenda. Too late will they realise that this EU Army is already dividing Europe from America. The Euro Army is a dagger pointing at the heart of NATO.

    This debate, and the other debates we are hearing this weekend, underline that Labour is no longer fit for government. But we Conservatives have no automatic right to govern. We have to earn that right. Moreover, it is not our right, but our duty to ensure that we are not just ready for government at the next election, but that the British people really feel they have choice about where to put their vote.

    We are the Party of choice. Together we must offer that choice.

  • Bernard Jenkin – 2003 Speech to Conservative Party Conference

    Bernard Jenkin – 2003 Speech to Conservative Party Conference

    The speech made by Bernard Jenkin, the then Shadow Defence Secretary, on 8 October 2003.

    You remember Iain told the Shadow Cabinet: look to the public services in other countries’ for proven and successful policy ideas.

    Drug re-habilitation in Sweden;

    Policing in New York;

    The health service in France.

    Well, I have been abroad to see the best too.

    I have seen some some excellent military forces in other countries.

    – peace keeping in Kabul;

    – Airlifting military supplies to Kuwait;

    – rebuilding in Southern Iraq.

    It won’t surprise you to know: these armed forces were all British –

    And they were already the best.

    Our armed forces are resourceful, adaptable to almost any challenge.

    They are utterly dependable.

    How unlike this New Labour government.

    The Hutton inquiry is laying bare the true character of New Labour.

    Mr Hoon confessed to the Hutton inquiry that he had no idea what was going on in his own department.

    Not so much his finger on the button, as found sleeping at the switch. He has lost all credibility.

    So why does the Prime Minister now praise Mr Hoon?

    For just one reason.

    To save his own skin.

    So how can New Labour possibly command the confidence and respect of the armed servicemen and women in their care?

    The philosophy of the armed forces is to serve and lead – taking control and accepting responsibility for those they command.

    Of real service and real leadership, New Labour knows nothing.

    Even where the defence of the realm is at stake, nobody can believe a word this Prime Minister says.

    That’s why we still need a wider inquiry.

    But, the continued and undoubted breach of UN resolutions – the defiance of the international community – was enough to justify military action against Saddam Hussein.

    Even the Liberal Democrats agreed that.

    So why didn’t the Prime Minister stick to the simple truth?

    Because he could not convince his own Party, his own MPs, and now, we know, not even his own cabinet.

    He squandered the integrity of his office to appease factions in his divided party.

    Let us not lose sight of the truth.

    The liberation of Iraq was a just cause and remains so.

    The Conservative Party made the right decision.

    Those who fought, those who still risk their lives, and those who have made the ultimate personal sacrifice: we salute them.

    There is nothing this prime minister or his shabby government can do to devalue that service and sacrifice.

    Here in Blackpool, there will be no crocodile tears, or phoney emotion, about how tough it is for us to take these decisions and to face the consequences.

    No parading of private letters for political gain.

    We politicians rarely face real dangers.

    We don’t have to endure the desert heat or bear real scars on our backs.

    It’s our armed forces who have the real job.

    Many of my colleagues in Parliament have served in the armed forces.

    Not least, our leader, Iain Duncan Smith.

    He is proving that he knows how to serve, and how to lead.

    He’s doing exactly what you elected him to do.

    He is putting together clear policies to offer the British people at the next election, based on honest Conservative principles.

    I shouldn’t have to say this.

    But it’s about time he got the backing of every single one of us.

    Two of our number are still serving in the forces.

    The Member of Parliament for Westbury is Surgeon Cmdr Andrew Murrison, Royal Navy, who has just deployed to Iraq.

    The member for New Forest West is Major Desmond Swayne,

    While Geoff Hoon is fighting for his job, Desmond is fighting for our country.

    Our armed forces should get the backing they deserve.

    They should never be taken for granted.

    Yet they do feel let down.

    By shortages of manpower and equipment;

    Cancelled training.

    Cancelled leave.

    In the infantry, the gap between tours of duty is meant to be 24 months.

    The average is now only nine months.

    The Royal Scots just back from Northern Ireland, are off to Iraq in December – less than six months.

    Never forget how this affects the families.

    The Royal Green Jackets, based near here, have just been rushed to Iraq at four day’s notice and yesterday, I went to meet their families.

    They hope they will be home by Christmas, but after eight weeks training, they are off again, to Northern Ireland.

    Overstretch.

    Not enough resources or manpower to match all the commitments.

    How can this be?

    We are told the economy has been growing.

    That Britain is so prosperous.

    Yet, as they lined up for battle on the Iraqi border, there weren’t enough chemical suits or desert kit to go round.

    What a shabby way to treat our soldiers!

    As a senior general acknowledged, we were ‘perilously close’ to not being ready for action.

    It is shaming that the Prime Minister wants to use the armed forces more than ever, but will not come up with the man power and equipment that they need.

    Why is it, under Labour, the tax burden has risen so much, defence commitments are increased, and yet defence spending is lower in real terms than in our last year of office?

    Because Labour just think they will get away with it.

    But it is only the sheer commitment and quality of the people of the armed forces that enables them to get away with it.

    Labour promised to increase the size of the army.

    Instead, we have the smallest army since Wellington.

    Labour have the wrong priorities.

    They have cut trained personnel in the armed forces by 12,000, but they have increased the number of tax collectors in the Inland Revenue by 16,000.

    Well, I suppose they’ve got all those 60 extra taxes to collect.

    But that says all you need to know about New Labour’s real priorities!

    Yet it doesn’t end here.

    Another defence review is coming.

    They want to cut Army manpower again.

    To sell off more Royal Navy Ships and submarines.

    To cut the size of the long promised new aircraft carriers.

    To cut the orders for new Destroyers.

    To cut the orders for new aircraft.

    And by the time we next meet, the Sea Harrier, our most capable air-to-air fighter, will be gone forever – probably sold off to another country.

    They are even cutting future service pensions!

    The armed forces deserve a fair deal.

    Enough boots on the ground to meet our peace keeping commitments.

    Enough warships, fully crewed, to meet our international obligations.

    Modern aircraft, to meet the threats of today and in the future.

    Homes fit for our heroes and their families.

    A quality of life that meets the aspirations of all those who serve Queen and Country.

    Our Conservative policy is based on a real assessment of threats and potential threats we face, not wishful thinking or false optimism.

    We all want peace in Northern Ireland, but Labour shouldn’t use it as an excuse for cutting the infantry.

    Every lesson of history teaches, especially in such a dangerous and unpredictable world, that we must be prepared for the unexpected.

    We will maintain Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent, and we will set out how it will be sustained beyond the present Trident system.

    Labour should be starting this process now.

    No sign of it.

    A rogue state with missiles, such as North Korea, might threaten us or our allies at any time.

    That’s why we also support global missile defence.

    Why are Labour dragging their feet on this?

    We will rebuild the Territorial Army and the reserves, so they can provide a credible home defence force and reinforcement for our regular forces.

    Iain has appointed a Shadow Minister for Homeland Security.

    In government, he will ensure we can better prevent terrorist attacks and set up proper civil protection.

    We fully support the ‘expeditionary principle’ – the ability to send large forces wherever in the world we need them and to sustain them.

    We will fully fund the defence capabilities that are essential to safeguard national security and to fulfil our international obligations.

    That is the only way to ensure a fair deal for the armed forces – and for your security.

    The British armed forces are Britain’s prize asset – Mr Blair’s aces – in international politics.

    But he is recklessly throwing them away to appease European Federalism.

    He is bargaining them for favours in a European Constitution that nobody in Britain wants.

    When he’s with President Bush, he supports Nato.

    But when he’s with Schroder and Chirac, he betrays Nato.

    European nations should certainly share more of the burden for European defence and for global security.

    But this EU Constitution is a direct challenge to the primacy of Nato and, ultimately, to the sovereign independence of our own national defence and foreign policy.

    We don’t need a Euro-army.

    Nato already provides for European Defence.

    Every concession Labour makes to the EU defence agenda strengthens those who want splits between the US and Europe.

    The Euro-army is not about more or better defence, but more structures, more headquarters, more offices, more committees.

    (Do we really want our defence run like EU fishing or agriculture?)

    It is just a platform for the vanity of Old Europe.

    It’s Nato that won the cold war, not the EU.

    It’s Nato, not the EU, that brought peace to the Balkans.

    It’s Nato now peacekeeping in Kabul and supporting European troops in Iraq.

    Nato guarantees national sovereignty.

    The EU Constitution would destroy it.

    That’s why the people need a say.

    We demand that referendum!

    Mr Chairman, fellow Conservatives, we ask the men and women of the armed forces to risk their lives, to protect our country, to safeguard our future.

    Let this Party pay tribute to them.

    They are a benchmark of excellence.

    The pride of our nation: the envy of others.

    Right now, at this moment, they serve.

    And they know, sooner or later, there are sacrifices.

    Surely they deserve a fair deal.

    And under the Conservatives, I promise you this.

    They will get that fair deal.