UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Iain Duncan Smith – 2003 Centre for Policy Studies Speech

    Ian Duncan Smith
    Iain Duncan Smith

    As I said last night, out there in Smith Square, it has been an immense honour to have led the Conservative party for the last two years.

    I very much hope that – as tonight seems likely – my successor is chosen quickly, so that we can all get behind the leader.

    The new leader will have my absolute loyalty.

    And I encourage all those members of the voluntary party who made me the first leader of the party elected by the grass roots, to also give that leader their whole-hearted support.

    From this moment onwards, we must never again allow our own private interests and squabbles to distract us from the task of opposition – the task of exposing this government’s manifold failures and defeating them at the next election.

    This speech was planned a little time ago, as the beginning of our great push to communicate the policies we announced at Blackpool.

    I decided I wanted to make the speech here at the CPS.

    This think-tank has always performed the role of intellectual pioneer for the Conservative Party, and, indeed, for the country…and I could think of a no better place to set out the programme for the first Conservative government of the 21st century – the government I hoped to lead.

    Events, you might have noticed, have somewhat overtaken me.

    But last night, after hearing the result of the confidence vote, I decided that I would still make this speech.

    Because although I will not lead the first Conservative government of this century, I believe I have provided its manifesto, its policy prospectus.

    I believe our Party now has an agenda as radical and attractive as that drawn up by Keith Joseph at the dawn of the Thatcher era.

    I’d like to take this opportunity to pay particular tribute to Greg Clark and his team in the Policy Unit.

    I know Greg has worked closely with the CPS in recent years and I am sorry he isn’t here tonight.

    He wisely went on holiday to Mexico at the end of last week!

    But he and his team – some of whom I see here – deserve the thanks of the entire party for what they have done.

    It is my deepest wish that the policies they have worked on for so long will form the programme of the next Conservative government.

    It is a settlement which, after much hard work, has won the support of all wings of the party – but which has lost none of its radicalism in the process.

    Tonight I want to talk about four inter-linked principles which I hope Conservatives will continue to stand for, whoever is elected leader – …the principles which will be my legacy to this Party.

    The first is the need for a complete renewal of our public services.

    The second is the need to place social justice, and concern for the plight of the vulnerable, at the very core of Conservative thinking.

    The third is the need for freedom, the rule of law and a strong and competitive economy.

    And the fourth is the need to defend the state itself, and the constitutional arrangements of the United Kingdom.

    The first task of the next Conservative government must be public service renewal.

    Of course, Conservatives were the joint authors of the welfare state.

    It was the Conservative health minister in Churchill’s wartime government who drew up the first plans for the NHS.

    It was Rab Butler who passed the great Education Act of 1944, ensuring mass education for Britain’s children.

    It was Harold Macmillan who, as housing minister in the early 50s, built up the public housing stock.

    Conservatives can share the credit for the creation and maintenance of the welfare state… …but we must also take our share of the blame for its failures – and commit ourselves to its renewal.

    The era of uniform, comprehensive, state-run services is over.

    Consumers are no longer prepared to be told to get what they’re given and be grateful.

    The professionals who deliver public services are no longer prepared to be treated like cogs in the machine.

    Taxpayers are no longer prepared to be billed, again and again, to pay for the ever-rising cost of a failed system.

    If the plans I have laid down are followed by my successor…the next Conservative government will make a real and immediate difference to people’s lives.

    Every parent in England and Wales will have a Better Schools Passport, giving them total control over the education of their child.

    Every citizen will have a Patient’s Passport, entitling them to free care anywhere in the NHS. And if, for whatever reason, they have to go private, they will get help to do so.

    The right-to-buy programme will be extended…so that housing association tenants can also experience the satisfaction and responsibility of home ownership.

    We will scrap Labour’s tuition fees for students and stopped their plans for extra top-up fees.

    And we will work to end the means test for pensioners and improve and incentivise saving for retirement.

    We will begin this process by raising the basic state pension in line with earnings.

    All these are radical, feasible, Conservative policies.

    They are based on the simple principle of trust.

    The welfare state was founded in a period when people were expected to trust the government – not government to trust the people.

    We’ll reverse that relationship.

    Under the first Conservative government of the 21st century, the state will not be a monopoly provider of education and healthcare.

    It will primarily be a funder, and a regulator.

    Government will trust teachers and doctors, managers and ministers, to make the decisions about how they work.

    Politicians often talk about how much we value our public service professionals. Conservative policies prove we mean it.

    Second is my commitment to one nation Conservatism.

    A child born into poverty in the first decade of the 21st century is more likely to stay poor than a child born into poverty in the 1950s.

    This is a shameful fact.

    Sadly, this Labour government – despite its best intentions – has not succeeded in reversing the trend.

    Inequality has actually widened under Tony Blair.

    Gordon Brown’s notional target of lifting a million children out of poverty has only been met by lifting families from just below the poverty line to just above it.

    Persistent poverty – real, grinding hardship – has often got worse under Labour.

    For too long the Labour Party have abused a monopoly position on these issues.

    Labour have failed to address the material roots of poverty and haven’t even begun to address the relational and spiritual dimensions of deprivation.

    But if Conservatives are to become an effective party of social justice we must not just oppose the worn-out approach of the liberal left…

    We must also oppose the nihilistic individualism of the libertarian right.

    One nation will never be built if public policy ignores some of the leading causes of poverty… Causes like family breakdown and drug addiction.

    There is nothing compassionate about weakness in the face of the drug menace.

    Social justice will never be achieved if government undermines society’s most basic institution – …the marriage-centred family and the many people of all backgrounds who benefit from its care.

    The poverty and crime killing so many communities won’t be defeated if we don’t help young people stay off drugs and recover from their addictions.

    That much was made clear to me when I met with a support group for the parents and grandparents of drug addicts in Glasgow.

    The faith and courage of the Gallowgate Family Support Group also taught me that drugs can be defeated.

    As Jim Doherty of that support group told me – “just give us hope and we will do the rest.” If the Conservative Party has half as much courage as those parents and grandparents, …then we will go forward to the next election with a policy on drugs that does – indeed – bring hope to Britain’s hard-pressed communities.

    We will also need courage if we are to do the right thing by Britain’s hard-pressed families. Those who believe that family breakdown is a purely private matter are blind to the enormous public consequences – …as well as the personal consequences for the children to which we all owe a duty of care.

    I am personally determined that a hard-headed and open-hearted approach to questions of poverty becomes a central theme of conversation and debate within the Conservative Party.

    An effective approach to drugs.

    Help for families to stay together.

    And a renewal of very local forms of voluntary activity and social entrepreneurship that often succeed where the centralised state fails.

    These should be the leading ingredients of one nation Conservatism in the twenty-first century.

    My social justice agenda springs from my visit to Easterhouse in February 2002.

    That was dismissed by many as a media stunt.

    But that visit – and many more to hard-pressed neighbourhoods since – have had a profound impact on me.

    If my main legacy to the Conservative Party is a body of policy……my commitment to fight poverty is that body’s beating heart.

    In the coming weeks I intend to think carefully about how I, personally, will take that commitment forward.

    The third principle I wish to leave my successor is the enduring Conservative commitment to freedom.

    Not a freedom that cuts people off from one another…but build communities where no one is held back by a lack of opportunity, and no one is left behind by a lack of compassion.

    Today, Britain feels like a place where you need a license to live your life.

    Taxes have risen by a half since 1997 – regulations rule every aspect of our lives.

    We must cut taxes and red tape.

    The next Conservative government must be a low tax government.

    It was John Stuart Mill who said: ‘a state that dwarfs its citizens, will find that with small men, no great things can be accomplished’.

    Today we are too afraid of risk…the risks that bring reward.

    Everything I have been talking about tonight tends to this: we must unleash the creative energies of the British people…to serve themselves, their families and their communities far more effectively than the state ever will.

    But there is another freedom – the freedom from fear.

    You can’t have a free people without order.

    That’s why the fight against crime is a fight for freedom.

    Conservative proposals will deliver 40,000 extra policemen and give every local community real control of their local force.

    I now come to my third principle of my legacy to the Conservative Party.

    Labour has not only undermined the cultural defences of civilisation.

    It has undermined the state itself.

    It has politicised the civil service.

    Eroded civil liberties.

    Suborned our once-independent intelligence services.

    Neglected the armed forces.

    And held in Parliament in contempt.

    I have talked about a Government that trusts people.

    We also need a Government that people can trust.

    Conservatives must restore the integrity of our national institutions – and restore integrity to public life.

    Most of all, we must have some honesty about Europe.

    Because we are now, truly, at a fork in the road.

    It has been the genius of our evolving Constitution that every step forward has been the continuation of an older tradition.

    But this is different.

    The proposed EU Constitution represents an explicit and total break with the past.

    The Constitution gives EU law primacy over UK law, and creates the European Court of Justice as the sovereign legal authority of the United Kingdom …the position previously held by the Queen in Parliament.

    This Treaty is something no Government can accept on the authority of its own elected mandate.

    The British Constitution is not the property of Tony Blair, to do with as he will.

    It is the property of the British people, held by the Government only in trust.

    No Prime Minister or Member of Parliament can vote away the basis on which he holds his office or his seat.

    So I have established the Conservative Party policy on this question: we are against the European constitution in principle.

    Three months ago, in Prague, I set out Conservative policy clearly and simply – and with the support of all wings of the party.

    Under the Conservatives, Britain will reclaim exclusive control of agriculture, fisheries and foreign aid.

    We will stem the tide of European regulation, and refuse to be part of a common foreign policy or a European army.

    And we will retain control of our borders and of our economy.

    This is not a blueprint for withdrawal from the EU.

    It is a positive step towards the sort of EU which most Europeans want: diverse, flexible, comprising independent states.

    We must build a new Europe.

    Not a single, unitary and unaccountable super-state …but a loose association of independent democracies, co-operating as they see fit but retaining their sovereign right to run their own affairs.

    We must take this vision forward.

    A great deal has changed for me over the past two years.

    Serving as leader of the opposition meant challenges on a scale that no one who hasn’t done the job can appreciate.

    There have been some privileges – but many more problems!

    All of this – from the sweet moments of victory to the bitter moments of defeat – have changed me.

    I’m still stubborn, and self-opinionated – and I’m still almost always right!

    But anyone with a modicum of sensitivity and insight – and I hope I’ve got at least a bit of both – …couldn’t help but be changed by what I’ve seen and done since 2001.

    So I’ve got an admission.

    I’ve been on a journey.

    A political journey as well as one all around this country.

    I’ve been appalled by much of what I’ve seen.

    In 21st century Britain, children dying of drugs that their parents died of too.

    In 21st century Britain, poverty still real.

    In 21st century Britain, pensioners trapped in their homes by fear of crime.

    On this journey, I’ve been reminded of something that lies deep in the Conservative conscience… …buried too deep for too long……that our party fulfils its greatest purpose when we bring social solidarity by delivering social justice.

    The people who taught me this lesson weren’t academics.

    They certainly weren’t the national media.

    Our party is sometimes accused by the media of being out of touch with modern Britain.

    In truth, the whole political class has lost touch with those in greatest need.

    Can we wonder that millions despair of politicians – and so opt out of the political process?

    My teachers were those often patronisingly described by those on the Westminster scene as ‘ordinary people’.

    In Gallowgate and Easterhouse, Hackney and Handsworth…I’ve met extra-ordinary people who fight for the poorest Britons, in communities ruined by drugs and crime.

    These remarkable men and women taught me more about leadership than any politician could have.

    They are real leaders.

    Their strength is their certain belief in the most profound of human qualities – hope, compassion, and a sense of fairness …beliefs derived from real lives, lived on the front line.

    The only meaningful freedoms for them are the freedom from fear and want, crime and addiction – they yearn not for license, but for order.

    My journey is not a trip to an uncertain future – but the journey home.

    To a Conservative home, where the security of family and community bring hope and fairness.

    My journey is not over.

    My mission will continue.

    It is the Conservative mission for fairness…

    …true to our inheritance…

    …vital for our people…

    …worthy of our nation.

  • Iain Duncan Smith – 2003 Speech to Conservative Spring Conference

    Ian Duncan Smith
    Iain Duncan Smith

    Below is the speech made by Iain Duncan Smith, the then Leader of the Opposition, at the Conservative Spring Conference on 16th March 2003.

    We are holding this conference with our country on the brink of war.

    In the twelve years from the fall of the Berlin Wall to the fall of the World Trade towers, a dangerous idea took hold.

    People came to believe that a new world order of peace and security had begun.

    They were wrong.

    Today, the stakes are high.

    Not just for Britain and the United States but for the whole world.

    The credibility of the United Nations and the Security Council are at stake.

    The relationship between America and Europe is at stake.

    Britain’s security is at stake.

    Difficult decisions are necessary.

    This is not a time to play party politics and I will not do so.

    That’s why I’ve backed those who are ready to take on that tyrant Saddam Hussein.

    I know some people have doubts;

    Of course, no decent man or woman ever welcomes war.

    But Saddam Hussein is a real menace to world peace.

    He is a monster to his own people.

    He has not disarmed despite twelve full years of second chances.

    And he’s not disarming now.

    John F Kennedy – at the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis – said, “Our goal is not the victory of might, but the vindication of right.

    Not peace at the expense of freedom, but both peace and freedom”.

    He warned: “The greatest danger of all would be to do nothing.”

    That warning echoes across the decades.

    It calls us to duty.

    No one understands duty more than those who serve in our armed forces.

    I had the privilege to visit them in Kuwait a fortnight ago.

    They are the finest troops in the world.

    I am so proud of them.

    As they wait, think also of their families whose wait will be even longer.

    I send them all our thoughts and prayers, as I say, God speed and come home safely.

    As perilous as the international situation is – it would be wrong to be distracted from Britain’s domestic challenges.

    For we have another duty.

    To hold this government to account.

    To provide effective opposition.

    To build the alternative government this country so desperately needs.

    Not since the 1970s – when the Conservatives last rescued Britain from Labour’s mess – has this country needed our party more.

    Our party’s duty is clear.

    It is to serve and to succeed.

    That success will depend on all of us…

    Working together; campaigning together…arguing together!

    Well perhaps, not arguing together too much!

    I’d like to pay tribute to each and every one of our Party members; our Association officers and our councillors up and down the land.

    I thank all of you.

    I know you fight hard for our cause.

    I know you work selflessly for your communities, and for your country.

    You work for the moment when Conservatives will restore hope and pride to Britain.

    Today I want to talk about the opportunity before our party.

    An opportunity to serve this country again.

    Because – and let me give you a headline here – the new Labour project is dead.

    Mr. Blair may stay in Downing Street for a couple more years but his mission is over.

    His Third Way has reached the end of the road.

    Just think, for a moment, about this government’s record:

    Higher taxes.

    But poorer public services.

    More laws.

    But less order.

    Bigger promises.

    But shrinking hope.

    For six long years the British people gave Tony Blair the benefit of the doubt.

    But there is no doubt now.

    Tony Blair’s day of reckoning is fast approaching.

    The British people are ready for change.

    They want change founded on fairness.

    Fairness for vulnerable people and fairness for the backbone of this country.

    We need to reassure them that Conservatives can deliver that fairness because we build on success.

    Our successes at home – in Conservative councils throughout Britain.

    And on what is already working in other countries.

    Let me begin by recording the significance of Labour’s latest failures and broken promises.

    More and more people are having what you might call ‘wake up moments.’

    They are moments triggered by yet more news of this Government’s failure, incompetence and dishonesty.

    In pubs…

    At the school gates…

    On the factory floor…

    People are talking about the moment they realised that this government was conning them.

    For some the wake-up moment came last summer during the ‘A’ levels fiasco.

    Never again will those people trust Mr. Blair’s promises on education.

    For some the wake up moment came a few months ago when Labour stopped sending burglars to prison.

    Never again will those people trust Mr. Blair’s promises on crime.

    For some, the wake up moment came when their council tax went through the roof and for others it will come when Labour’s National Insurance Jobs Tax takes yet more pounds from their wage packet.

    Never again will those people trust Mr. Blair’s promises on tax.

    For some, that wake up moment will come when Labour attempts to sign up Britain to a European Constitution and a European single currency.

    Never again will the people trust Mr. Blair’s promises on Europe.

    No Mr. Blair – we’re not going to let you sell the birthright of the British people.

    In 1997 Mr. Blair led people to believe that things could only get better.

    Many people had such high hopes of him.

    In 2001 they heard another set of promises and – although doubtful – gave Mr. Blair one last chance.

    Remember those promises?

    Remember that grin?

    There isn’t so much to smile about now.

    Mr. Blair has squandered a golden economic inheritance, and two large parliamentary majorities.

    Every year he’s taken an extra one hundred billion pounds of tax from you… and all for nothing.

    This Labour government is a one hundred billion pound a year failure and history will not judge it kindly.

    Not least because history will be written by people who have to pay Labour’s frightening top-up fees.

    It will by read by people who have to face up to the consequences of Labour’s cynical raid on pensions.

    Labour isn’t just hurting people now; it’s stealing their futures.

    Many British people feel that they’ve been taken for a ride.

    You’ve saved for years for your retirement but your pension is dropping in value by the day.

    You’re working longer hours and paying more tax than ever before.

    And despite the tax you’re paying, the schools, hospitals and trains you depend on – still aren’t working.

    You respect the law but get no protection from those who don’t.

    You do your bit for others and just get hassle in return.

    It’s no surprise that some people are asking themselves:

    What’s the point?

    What’s the point of doing everything you can; when it feels like the system is stacked against you?

    The people who work in Britain’s public services feel this more than most.

    Professional initiative and independence have been ripped out of our public services.

    Ripped out by a Government that thinks it always knows best.

    A government that prescribes to our doctors and nurses, that lectures our teachers, and that handcuffs our police officers.

    Let’s not forget, it’s doctors and nurses who take life and death decisions.

    It’s teachers who are trusted with our children’s schooling.

    It’s police officers who protect our homes and our families.

    We rely on them all.

    They shoulder huge responsibilities on our behalf.

    They are the real heroes of our communities.

    Yet this Government doesn’t trust them.

    Instead it hands over your money to a million bureaucrats who are miles from the frontline of our public services.

    The British soldiers of the First World War were described as lions led by donkeys.

    Today our public services are staffed by doctors and nurses, led by number-crunchers.

    Teachers led by target-setters.

    Police officers led by pen-pushers.

    That is why the tax you are paying is not giving you the better healthcare or the better education or the better policing that you need.

    It’s being wasted in a system that insults and undermines the dedication and professionalism of the people who really do know best – the people at the sharp end.

    So: what’s missing in Blair’s Britain?

    I’ll tell you what I think it is.

    It’s fairness.

    The British people don’t expect the earth.

    They – just – want – a fair – deal.

    Labour preaches fairness;

    The Conservative Party practises fairness.

    We believe in a special obligation to the young and to the old.

    We believe in helping people who are least able to help themselves.

    We believe in giving a youngster in trouble a chance to go straight.

    We believe in opportunity for people of every background.

    And we reject the lonely individualism of those who would allow everything – and stand up for nothing.

    Crucially, we understand that fairness cuts two ways.

    Conservatives appreciate you have to be fair to the people who pay for the public services and for society’s other responsibilities.

    People who build and run businesses.

    People who provide for their families and their futures.

    People who play by the rules and aren’t a burden to the police or courts.

    People who are patriotic.

    People who advance social justice by giving to their communities.

    These people don’t belong to a special interest group.

    Theirs is not a trendy cause.

    And they are forgotten by this government… except, of course, when Gordon Brown wants their money.

    But they are the quiet strength of our nation and, yes, they are getting angry.

    These people are the backbone of our country and this Government has ripped them off.

    Voters are deserting this failing government.

    But the Liberal Democrats are not an alternative to Labour.

    They are its dark shadow.

    If Tony Blair is new Labour.

    Charles Kennedy is old Labour.

    But, have I got news for you, Mr Kennedy;

    By the next General Election we will make sure that every voter knows what your party really stands for.

    Before May’s elections, Liberal Democrat Candidates will cynically attempt to distance themselves from Charles Kennedy’s policies.

    But Liberal Democrat councils are just like Labour councils.

    And in the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament, it’s impossible to tell the difference between Labour and the Liberals.

    They both tax more.

    They both waste more.

    And they both deliver less.

    Why vote for more of the same – only worse?

    Labour and the Liberal Democrats are both in thrall to a culture of despair.

    The cynical despair of politicians who’ve lost the will to make a difference.

    They have always been content to manage decline.

    Conservatives never have and Conservatives never will.

    People no longer believe Labour’s promises.

    They’ve watched Labour fail.

    They don’t want their hopes dashed again.

    But they need proof that the Conservative Party is different.

    And that means we have to be straightforward.

    We must promise only what we can deliver.

    There’s an urgent job that needs to be done and we have to show that we’re up to it.

    Labour, like a cowboy builder, promised perfection, charged the earth and built something that’s falling apart.

    Well, enough is enough.

    They build on sand.

    But we’ll build on rock.

    At home, we’re already building on a very strong record in local government.

    The independent Audit Commission has proved that Conservative councils provide better quality services at a lower cost than Labour and the Liberal Democrats.

    Conservative councils are led by people who’ve run businesses, worked in the public services and given to their communities.

    They don’t waste council taxpayers’ money.

    They don’t wrap projects up in red tape.

    They get the job done.

    That’s why we need more Conservative councillors elected in May.

    That’s why we need more Conservatives in the Scottish Parliament and in the Welsh Assembly.

    And our programme at the next General Election will be built on what’s already working in other countries.

    There’s New York’s successful war on crime.

    Australia’s tough but fair asylum policy.

    Holland’s rich mix of high-achieving, local schools.

    France and Germany’s hospitals where the sick do not have to wait.

    We’re learning from what works elsewhere in the world and we’re going to make it work for Britain, too.

    So, I can say with confidence:

    The next Conservative Government will put 40,000 extra police officers on Britain’s streets.

    And this will be funded by our quota system which will restore order to Labour’s asylum chaos.

    So chaotic that – on Friday – Labour’s system was judged the weakest in Europe.

    By reforming Britain’s public services Conservatives will stop the waste of taxpayers’ hard-won earnings.

    We will give headteachers authority over their schools.

    They will have effective powers to restore discipline in the classroom.

    State scholarships will open the door of opportunity for children in failing schools.

    We will put clinical priorities first by scrapping Labour’s politically-motivated targets for the NHS.

    And because Conservatives trust nurses and doctors, we will create foundation hospitals with real freedoms to serve local communities.

    These freedoms will stop the suffering caused by the current system’s failings.

    Just think of people who’ve waited months for a desperately needed operation.

    So desperate for treatment that they use their life savings to pay for it outside the NHS.

    Labour won’t face up to the fact: the system fails these people.

    Labour always defend the system against the patients.

    Conservatives always put patients first.

    That’s why we’ll help people who’ve paid their taxes, and can wait no longer, to get care faster in a private, public or voluntary run hospital of their choice.

    We call that our Patient Passport.

    And it’s not just patients that deserve fairness.

    Conservatives know that parents, students, passengers and victims of crime deserve fairness, too.

    That’s the difference between us and Labour.

    Conservative policies will help everyone in Britain.

    They will help everyone who is worn down by failing schools, rising crime, substandard healthcare, child poverty and insecurity in old age.

    Our agenda is so vital for people in vulnerable communities like Easterhouse, Glasgow.

    I will never forget my visits to them and to Gallowgate and Moss Side and Hackney and Grangetown and all the many other places where hope is in retreat.

    These are the people in Labour’s heartlands that Tony Blair has forgotten.

    The Conservative Party will not forget them.

    Some say: ‘they’re not Conservative – and never will be’.

    They said the same 25 years ago when Conservatives introduced the right-to-buy – giving council tenants the opportunity to own their own home.

    Now we plan to extend the right to buy to housing association tenants, too.

    Much, much more still needs to be done today for people unfairly excluded from all that Britain has to offer.

    Our party – the party of Burke, Disraeli and Shaftesbury – fulfils its greatest purpose when it upholds fairness for every person in Britain.

    Not only for the disadvantaged but for the hard-working, law-abiding, patriotic majority who deserve a fair deal, too.

    So, when you’re next asked why vote Conservative? say this:

    One:

    Conservatives in local government already spend taxpayers’ money more carefully and get the job done.

    Two:

    Conservatives want a fair deal for everyone.

    For those who rely on public services;

    For those who work in them; and for those who pay for them.

    And three:

    Conservatives are passionate about making Britain’s economy and public services work again.

    We will deliver because our programme is built on what already works at home and elsewhere in the world.

    All of our efforts; all of our energy – will be devoted to the urgent tasks facing the British people.

    Devoted to getting on with the job…

    Not Mr Blair, just to getting on TV.

    In the last eighteen months the mission and purpose of our party has been renewed.

    This party is now – and always will be – the party of enterprise and prosperity…

    But we are also a party committed to better public services.

    This party is now – and always will be – a party that keeps taxes low and gives people power over their own lives.

    This party is now – and always will be – a party of freedom, tradition and national pride…

    But we are just as much a party of fairness.

    We are a party committed to those who need society’s help and to those who provide it.

    We stand for justice for the victim and justice for those who need help to mend their ways.

    We believe in compassion that helps vulnerable people and compassion that rewards responsibility.

    In practical terms:

    Fairness requires us to help people fleeing from persecution and to stop the scandalous abuse of Britain’s asylum system.

    Fairness demands that we properly punish criminals and that we help young people to escape the conveyor belt to crime.

    Fairness leads a Conservative government to always appreciate the dedication of single parents and to reward marriage for the dedication and stability it provides children.

    This is my agenda.

    An agenda for fairness.

    It’s Conservative.

    Conservative in heart and mind.

    In idealism and practicality.

    In vision and reality.

    If ever there was a common ground of British politics then this is it.

    It’s where the British people stand.

    It’s where we stand.

    My mission – a mission for the whole Conservative party – is to safeguard our prosperity and to improve our public services.

    To build one nation.

    To create a Britain that is fair for all its people.

    We will not be distracted from this mission.

    Ours is a great party.

    And sometimes, great parties are tough to lead.

    So, I took on this job thinking it would be hard.

    And, you know what?

    It is!

    It is hard.

    But it’s not as hard as bringing up a child on an inner city estate.

    It’s not as hard as saving all your life and seeing your pension fund plundered by the government.

    It’s not as hard as watching your mother wait and wait for an operation she desperately needs.

    It’s not as hard as seeing the country you love divided and demoralised.

    I didn’t seek the leadership of this party for its own sake.

    I sought it so that we could give back hope to our country and to all its people.

    People who are sick and tired of Labour’s broken promises.

    Sick of a failing health service.

    Tired of taxes… raised and wasted.

    Sick of the drug epidemic.

    Tired of government spin and lies.

    People don’t expect the earth.

    But they want a fair deal.

    And they deserve a fair government.

    From Easterhouse to Hackney, amongst pensioners and the young, you can hear the beating heart of a discontented Britain.

    Discontented and dismissed – they’ve lost faith that things could change.

    It is our challenge to re-unite this country and to restore fairness.

    This is a challenge worthy of us – we must respond.

    Our country is waiting.

    Our party is ready.

    Ready to build a Britain to be proud of;

    For a people that deserve the very best.

  • Liam Byrne – 2015 Speech on Syrian Air Strikes

    Below is the text of the speech made by Liam Byrne in the House of Commons on 2 December 2015.

    It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton). She is right that this is a serious debate. It is one I have considered, too, and I am sorry, but I have come to a different conclusion from her.

    I speak against this motion, and I speak with a great sense of frustration. I am frustrated because I agree with the Prime Minister that we are at war; we are under attack, and we face an enemy the like of which we have never faced before. We are fighting against shadowy networks and nebulous states. Today’s debate is about the theatre of Syria, but we all know there are other theatres. We know there is conflict that we may need to come to in Yemen, on the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan, in the Khorasan region, in Libya and in parts of Nigeria. The enemy we are debating tonight is Daesh, but we all know there are other enemies. We know there is the core of al-Qaeda still present somewhere around Afghanistan and Pakistan. We know there is al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. We know there is the Khorasan group at work against us. We know there is Jabhat al-Nusra in Iraq, and its allies.

    What this reveals to us is that this will be a long march. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr Godsiff) said, we must maintain solidarity and unity of purpose at home for what will be a very long fight. That is why we cannot afford in this House to put forward strategies that we think carry too great a risk of failure, as I am afraid the Government strategy does.

    I was grateful to hear the Prime Minister put such emphasis on this being a joint struggle for both western and Islamic freedom. We can see that in the refugee camps of northern Iraq. We know that Daesh has acquired the capability to plan attacks here in Europe. That is why what I wanted today was sustained, short-term action to take out that external planning capability of ISIS, whether that needs air cover or boots on the ground. In the longer term, like the Chair of the Defence Committee, I want to see an overwhelming coalition brought to bear, to smash Daesh into history. That needs Vienna first, not Vienna second.

    We dare not risk defeat. That would hand our enemies a propaganda victory that we would hear about for years to come. However, victory means bringing together air cover, ground forces and politics—and, heavens above, if we cannot sustain that combination to take back Mosul, how on earth will we take back Raqqa in Syria? That is why I was disappointed that the Prime Minister was not able to specify this afternoon just what the ground forces are that will help us take back Raqqa under the air cover of the RAF. That is the difference between Iraq and Syria. In Iraq, there are ground forces; in Syria, frankly, there are not. I do not want a half-hearted fight; I want a full-on fight, and we did not have a plan for that from the Government today.

  • James Heappey – 2015 Speech on Syrian Air Strikes

    Below is the text of the speech made by James Heappey in the House of Commons on 2 December 2015.

    On three occasions, I left my family and boarded a plane bound for Afghanistan or Iraq. As the plane went through the clouds, I took what could have been my final look out of the window at this country. When you do that, you cannot help wondering whether the people who have stood in this place have made the right decision, whether the nation is with you, and whether what you are going to do is worthwhile.

    Today, I rise to contribute to that decision-making process, and I can tell the House that the responsibility weighs heavily on my shoulders. However, I am certain that the motion should be supported. It clearly states that the continuation of airstrikes in Syria is just one part of the solution that is required to defeat Daesh, and to secure a peace both there and in Iraq. Bombing, diplomacy, aid, and countering radicalisation at home and abroad are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, we have surely seen that they are utterly interdependent. Today, we must decide on whether to take military action, and I want to speak briefly about four themes in support of that action.

    First, we are being asked to join a coalition—a coalition of our closest allies and some of our most important partners in the region—and we must answer their call. Secondly, our contribution does enhance the capability of the coalition. Difficult targets present themselves only fleetingly, and prosecuting those targets requires constant air cover involving highly skilled pilots and deadly accurate munitions. Our Royal Air Force offers that. Thirdly, there is the necessity for indigenous ground manoeuvre. In Basra, my battle group was fighting an insurgency that existed almost entirely because we were there. The 70,000 Syrians and 20,000 Kurds under arms could, and should, become a cohesive and capable force, but the bombing campaign will buy the time for them to be manoeuvred into the place where we need them to be, so that we can co-ordinate their efforts in support of the airstrikes.

    It is, of course, important to note that those airstrikes degrade Daesh in the meantime. They have a military effect of their own. It is clear to me from today’s debate—this is my final point—that the House agrees on the ends that we seek to achieve, and that most of us agree on the means by which we seek to achieve them, diplomatic, humanitarian and military. The disagreement is on when, and in what order. I say from personal experience that when we are trying to buy time in a combat zone, we need to suppress the enemy. We need to keep their head down, and deny them any freedom of action. Nothing in a combat zone is perfect—the timing is never right—but we must get on with this, because we are required to do to help the Syrian people.

  • Mary Creagh – 2015 Speech on Syrian Air Strikes

    Below is the text of the speech made by Mary Creagh in the House of Commons on 2 December 2015.

    It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), although I disagree with the position he takes. I pay tribute to the hon. and gallant Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) and the hon. and gallant Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) for their thoughtful speeches, and also to my right hon. Friends the Members for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) and for Derby South (Margaret Beckett), with whom I agree entirely.

    This is one of the most important decisions an MP can make, and it is not one I have taken lightly. As a Labour MP, I believe we have to choose and shape Britain’s place in the world if we are to create a world in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few. ISIL poses a clear threat to Britain. Thirty British holidaymakers were murdered on the beach in Tunisia in July, and we know that seven ISIL-related terror attacks against British people have been stopped in the past year. Paris could have happened in London.

    There is no hope of negotiating with ISIL. We must stop the flow of fighters, finance and arms to its headquarters in Raqqa. We need military action to stop it murdering Syrians and Iraqis, and to disrupt its propaganda machine, which poisons the minds of our young people and leads them to commit appalling acts at home and abroad. For the past 14 months, UK forces have carried out airstrikes against ISIL in Iraq, with no civilian casualties, so for me it makes no sense to turn back our planes at the Syrian border and allow ISIL to regroup in Syria.

    In September, as Labour’s shadow International Development Secretary, I visited Lebanon, where 1.5 million Syrian refugees have sought sanctuary. One in four people in Lebanon is a Syrian refugee. The Department for International Development has made a huge contribution to the aid effort there, opening up Lebanese schools to Syrian children so that they can continue their education and have some form of normality after witnessing the horrors of that war.

    I met Iman, a 65-year-old grandmother from Aleppo, who was imprisoned by President Assad for two weeks when she bravely returned from Lebanon to Syria, after her son was killed, to rescue her five orphaned grandchildren. She lives in a shack made of breeze blocks in the port city of Sidon. Hadia told me how her husband, a Red Cross volunteer, was killed in Syria, and how her four older children are still trapped in Homs. She did not want to go to Germany under a resettlement programme, because she could not take her elderly mother with her and did not want to leave her alone to die in a camp. I met Ahmed from Raqqa and 10-year-old girls working in the fields as agricultural labourers—their childhoods stolen from them—after ISIL had taken over their town, although that is still better than staying in Raqqa and being enslaved there.

    There is a massive humanitarian crisis in Syria: 250,000 people have been killed, there are 4.7 million refugees outside the country and 6 million have been internally displaced.

    George Kerevan:

    Will the hon. Lady give way?

    Mary Creagh:

    I will not. I want other Members to have the chance to speak, as we have all been waiting to do.

    The UK has given aid to Jordan and Syria, but aid is not the answer to the problems of Syria. Peace is the answer, and we need a fresh diplomatic effort to bring peace to that country. The Vienna talks offer real hope of that, with Russia, Saudi Arabia and Iran all around the table for the first time.

    We voted against action in 2013, after the sarin gas attacks—a vote I regret and now believe to be wrong. We now have the largest refugee crisis since world war two. The war in Syria has no end and no laws, and ISIL is expanding its caliphate there. We have had no strategy for Syria, and now we have no easy choices. We need a ceasefire, a political settlement and a path to democratic elections, which is why I shall support the Government tonight.

  • Stephen Twigg – 2015 Speech on Syrian Air Strikes

    Below is the text of the speech made by Stephen Twigg in the House of Commons on 2 December 2015.

    I congratulate the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) on a powerful speech. I have reached a different conclusion from him, but he made a powerful case none the less.

    May I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests? I visited Jordan in October, with my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary. The visit was arranged by Oxfam so that we could meet Syrian refugees in the Zaatari camp and living in host communities.

    I welcome the Government motion’s renewed commitment

    “to providing humanitarian support to Syrian refugees”.

    Members from all parts of this House can be proud of the role played by our country, particularly the Department for International Development, alongside civil society, in the humanitarian effort. I also pay tribute to the countries in the region that have welcomed very large numbers of refugees from Syria, notably Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey. It is vital that we maintain our support for those neighbouring countries, but it is also increasingly important that we focus on the needs of people displaced within Syria itself. It is estimated that just in October about 120,000 Syrians fled their homes in Aleppo, Hama and Idlib. Our support for multilateral organisations such as the World Food Programme and UNICEF is therefore crucial. The International Development Committee is looking at the Syrian refugee crisis and we plan to publish our report in early January. We are examining both the challenges in the region and what more our country can do to help refugees.

    The people at the Zaatari refugee camp told us that they wanted to return home to Syria but they live in fear of their own Government and their barrel bombs. That is part of the context of today’s debate. As the Prime Minister said, our debate today is not about whether we want to defeat Daesh—we all want that. The evil actions of that organisation are well documented and have been covered during his debate. The question is: how do we do it? Last year, I supported the decision to join airstrikes against Daesh in Iraq. I agree with those on both sides of today’s argument who have said that our airstrikes have played an important role in helping the Iraqi Government forces and the peshmerga to take territory from Daesh in Iraq. But I also agree with those colleagues on both sides of the House who have said that the situation on the ground in Raqqa is very different from the one in Iraq. I do not necessarily question the 70,000 figure. The issue for me is where those troops are. They are Syrian opposition forces who are typically in other parts of Syria and fighting the Assad regime. It is fanciful to suppose that they will provide a ground force for an operation combined with airstrikes in Raqqa. I am not convinced, therefore, that there is a credible ground force for Raqqa.

    After the Prime Minister’s statement last Thursday, I went back to Liverpool, where I met a Syrian doctor who lives there. He expressed the view of many Syrians living in exile when he said that for them the biggest threat comes from Assad. Indeed, the moderate forces that we seem to be relying on are currently bombed by Assad and by Russia. I fear that the lack of ground forces will limit the effectiveness of airstrikes and that the strategy the Prime Minister set out last week of ISIL-first—in other words, Daesh-first—will have the unintended consequence of strengthening the brutal and murderous Assad regime. For those reasons, I will vote against the Government tonight.

  • Hywel Williams – 2015 Speech on Syrian Air Strikes

    Below is the text of the speech made by Hywel Williams in the House of Commons on 2 December 2015.

    I will be voting for the amendment tonight, as will my colleagues in Plaid Cymru.

    Earlier this afternoon, the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard)—he is no longer in his place—referred, with a magisterial wave, to parties on these Opposition Benches as the “pacifist parties.” Plaid Cymru is not a pacifist party, as was confirmed only yesterday by our leader in the national Assembly. We opposed military action in Iraq, but we supported it in Libya, although now I have my doubts.

    I have many concerns about the Government’s proposals, but I will not list them all. The Prime Minister said that 70,000 moderate Syrian fighters would supply the boots on the ground that he—rightly, in my view—will not commit to himself. That assertion is absent from the motion, and my impression is that supporters of the bombing have become increasingly coy on that matter. No surprise there.

    We have been presented many times with a false choice, a false dichotomy. We have heard that we must either bomb or do nothing, but surely we can either bomb or do things that, in my view, are reasonable, proportionate and effective. For example, we could provide further support for the peshmerga—the force that has proved itself to be so effective against Daesh, against the odds and with very few resources. Pressure could be put on Turkey to desist from attacking the Kurds so that they can both concentrate on defeating Daesh.

    What can we do to secure a future for the Kurds in southern and western Kurdistan, and to secure a settlement for the Kurds in eastern Anatolia? No one has yet made that point this afternoon, but it is a small but essential part of the jigsaw. Daesh does not act alone, and it is abundantly clear that they are killers, not talkers. Daesh has international sponsors who provide it with money and material. What further pressure can we put on the Gulf states and their citizens, and on Turkey, to stop the supply of resources that Daesh needs to wage its evil war?

    Syria is not some distant land of which we know little. Daesh and its supporters are eager to wage war on the streets of western Europe, but those who perpetrated that foul work in Paris were home-grown, as were those who bombed London. Terrorists are being trained in Syria, but they are radicalised through the specious arguments of those who see oppression everywhere and who misuse distortions of Islam to inspire mayhem and murder. That is being done here and on the internet, and we could take steps in that respect. I will not speak about the Vienna process because of pressure on time.

    Members have asked whether bombing will make us safer, and some have said that we are proposing to keep our heads down. In terms of more bombings in the west, if we bomb Syria, we will be sowing a further 1,000 dragons’ teeth. Not bombing is also a serious security consideration, however. It is not just a matter of keeping our heads down.

    I was in this House when Tony Blair, at his persuasive best, convinced a majority that Britain was in imminent danger of attack and that we should wage war in Iraq. As has already been said, 2003 is not 2015, but we are still waiting for the Chilcot report. I am not starry-eyed about the prospects for that report, but I believe its earlier publication would have been valuable in informing this debate. The delay is deeply regrettable.

  • Dominic Grieve – 2015 Speech on Syrian Air Strikes

    Below is the text of the speech made by Dominic Grieve in the House of Commons on 2 December 2015.

    It is a pleasure to follow and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie) and the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn). I shall have to endeavour to explain to them why I think they are both mistaken in their conclusions.

    All of us in this House have acknowledged, and indeed it is a legitimate subject of debate, that the condition of the middle east is frankly pretty close to being catastrophic. There are powerful forces at work pulling civil society apart. There is sectarian conflict. There are a whole variety of grievances that have been exploited by various dictators throughout the ages, and that is regularly being repeated. All the signs are that in many places the structure is extremely fragile, and we are very fortunate that in one or two areas it is subsisting.

    We can all agree on that, and I also agree that the situation is not amenable to any easy solution, or we would have found it a long time ago, but none of that explains to me logically why some hon. Members in this House consider that action in extending our military operations against Daesh into Syria is wrong. If it is indeed wrong, then our intervention in Iraq 12 months ago was wrong, whereas all the analysis that I have seen suggests to me that it is the one thing that has prevented the situation from wholly spinning out of control. We have a remarkable tendency in this House—perhaps it is a good thing in a democracy—to look at our shortcomings and not look at the benefits of what we may have achieved. It seems to me that if we had not intervened, there was a serious risk that generalised war would have broken out in the middle east, with Iranian intervention in Iraq to prop up the Iraqi regime and, ultimately, intervention by Saudi Arabia as well. We ought to look on the bright side of what has been achieved and then consider whether the limited steps that have been proposed are reasonable. It seems to me that they are. They are not a solution to the problem, and to that extent, the challenge remaining for my right hon. Friends through the Vienna process is a very real one. It does not seem to me that those limited steps will make matters worse. What they show is a comity of interest with our allies, to whom we are committed, to try to do something to address this problem and to keep it under control until better solutions can be found. That seems to me to be a legitimate and proportionate response to the problem that we face.

    It has been suggested that this will all in some way run away with itself. It will not do so if the House is vigilant. The legal basis for intervention is very limited: every action that is taken hereafter will have to be necessary and proportionate to achieve a legitimate aim that is severely circumscribed. I have every confidence that my right hon. and learned Friend and my hon. and learned Friend the Law Officers will be able to deal with that, and every confidence that my colleagues in the Government will observe the limits.

    It has been suggested that we will not be able to engage in diplomacy. I have to say I was staggered to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) say that we ought to emulate the Chinese in this matter, rather than the French. I find that an extraordinary notion.

    Stephen Gethins:

    As a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) quite rightly made the point that the UK can maintain its influence without taking military action that will have a marginal effect.

    Mr Grieve:

    If I may say so, the question that should be asked is a different one: does our involvement diminish our ability to exercise diplomatic influence? The hon. Gentleman fails to take into account that by withdrawing from the military process entirely, as he is clearly advocating, we diminish our ability to influence the allies who share our values in this matter. That is why I found the suggestion that we should emulate China so astonishing.

    Finally, there is an issue of great importance about Islamophobia and the structures of our own society. The hon. Member for Newport West touched on it, and he has my very considerable sympathy; he probably knows that I have had an interest in this matter for many years. I have absolutely no doubt that Islamophobia is on the rise in this country and, indeed, that the backwash coming out of the middle east threatens to undermine our civil society. That is a very real challenge that everybody in the House ought to address. In that regard, my criticisms of the Prevent strategy are well known. I must say that I do not believe what we are doing in Syria undermines that one jot. On the contrary, I would have thought that a sense of powerlessness in the face of the murderous cruelty of Daesh is one of the most likely causes fuelling Islamophobia in this country. A rational policy enacted and proceeded with by the Government—with, I hope, the support of many Members of the House—seems to me to be a better way forward.

  • Paul Flynn – 2015 Speech on Syrian Air Strikes

    Below is the text of the speech made by Paul Flynn in the House of Commons on 2 December 2015.

    We are fighting and losing the wrong war. This is a war of hearts and minds that can never be won with bombs and bullets. The situation is truly terrifying, and we underestimate it if we imagine that it is confined to a couple of countries. People who have been brought up in this country, gone to our schools and absorbed our culture and values find themselves seduced by the message of Daesh. Two such people went to Syria from Cardiff and are now dead. They gave their lives to this mad, murderous cult. We must examine why they did that.

    The reason is that Daesh’s narrative is very cleverly conceived to appeal to adolescents. It offers danger, adventure in foreign parts and martyrdom. It also deepens the sense of victimhood by churning up all the stories from the middle ages about how the wicked Christian crusaders slaughtered without mercy the Muslims. We must challenge that dialogue of hate. We must have a different narrative. There is a good narrative for us to take up, because in the past 200 years we have had great success in places like Cardiff and Newport in building up mixed communities of races and religions.

    We must not imagine that anything will be over as a result of what happens in Syria or Iraq. This has spread throughout the world—throughout Asia and throughout South America. There is hardly a country in the world where Daesh does not want to spread its hatred. It has a worldwide plan to divide the world into Muslim communities and Christian communities that are at war. In other countries there is great suffering in many of the Christian communities that are being persecuted. We are falling into the trap it designed in Sharm el-Sheikh, Tunisia and Paris to pull us on to the punch. It is saying, “This is the way to get a world war going. This is the way to incite the west to send in military people and have a world war.” This is precisely what it wants—it has said so. It wants a world war and we must not fall into the trap.

    We have heard today throughout this House some very good, sincere speeches, but I believe that the combination of two dangerous views, “Something must be done” and “Give war a chance”, leads us to the position that we are now in. Those of us who were in the House when we went to war in Iraq were told, by the same people who are telling us now that there are 70,000 friendly troops, that there were definitely weapons of mass destruction there. There were not. In 2006, we were told that we could go into Helmand with no chance of a shot being fired. We lost 454 of our soldiers there. Little has been achieved. Because of decisions taken in this House in the past 20 years, we have lost the lives of 633 of our soldiers. I believe that if we go in now, nothing much will happen. There will be no improvement—we will rearrange the rubble, perhaps—but we will strengthen the antagonism and deepen the sense of victimhood among Muslims worldwide; they will have another excuse. We must not fall into that trap. We need to have a counter-dialogue, and get it into the media and on to the world wide web, to say that there is a great story to be told of harmony in our country. We must put that forward as a genuine alternative.

  • Daniel Poulter – 2015 Speech on Syrian Air Strikes

    Below is the text of the speech made by Daniel Poulter in the House of Commons on 2 December 2015.

    It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden), who made some thoughtful remarks. I have come to a different conclusion from him about how to vote, but it is worth reflecting that no Government or MP takes lightly decisions about committing UK forces to combat. Our debate has highlighted the fact that there are no easy answers or solutions to the complex questions raised by the conflict in Syria and the fight with Daesh.

    In broad terms, there are three issues that we are considering. First, we are considering the issue of combating extremism at home and the impact that airstrikes may have on that. Secondly, is it right to engage in airstrikes against Daesh, given concerns about our ability to engage in ground combat in an effective and co-ordinated manner, or to support troops in Syria? I believe that the answer is yes, and I shall come on to that. Thirdly, we are considering the issue of protecting civilians and refugees.

    On the issue of extremism at home, ISIS, I think we all agree, presents a clear and present danger to the UK and our national security as things stand before the vote. To those who say that we will become a focus for attack if we vote for airstrikes, I would say that it is clear that we are already a target for attack. We have heard that there have been seven plots in the UK linked to ISIS in Syria that have been foiled by the UK police and security services. There is a fundamental threat to our national security, as is self-evident in the information that was passed to the Prime Minister, as he explained today. The answer to the question of whether ISIS presents a threat to our national security at home is clearly yes. In my view, given such a threat, it is in the interests of my constituents and of all hon. Members’ constituents to deal with it and strike ISIS at its heart in Syria and protect British citizens in the process.

    On the issue of committing to airstrikes, there are concerns about capability on the ground and support for ground troops. We have heard that there is a patchwork of troops working to fight ISIS on the ground. Military action against ISIS has been taken by a number of our UN allies and other countries and concurrently the Vienna process is under way to build a broader diplomatic alliance. That is work in progress, both in diplomatic terms and in terms of supporting ground troops. The fact that we do not have a perfect solution on the ground and do not have absolutely the right capability to tackle ISIS and support the fight against it in a ground war by various Syrian forces is not a barrier to supporting airstrikes. This is an evolving process, and ISIS poses a threat not just to the UK but to other citizens.

    Finally, on the issue of refugees and civilians, the biggest threat to civilian life in Syria is Daesh/ISIS. There is a refugee crisis in Syria because of Daesh/ISIS acts. On those three points, I support the Government, and I urge colleagues to do the same.