Bernard Jenkin MP: speeches

Speeches

• 3 Jul 2025 · NHS 10-Year Plan · Hansard source

  More

  I join others in welcoming much of the Secretary of State’s plan, but I want to return to the question of the Health Services Safety Investigations Body, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston (Edward Argar) referred. I welcome the tone of the Secretary of State’s response to that part of my right hon. Friend’s questions, but will he agree to meet those of us from the Select Committee—a cross-party group of people—who campaigned over many years to bring this body, which is still in its infancy, into existence before making any further decisions on it? As my right hon. Friend says, HSSIB is not a regulator, and to put it in with a regulator will create confusion about what it is. If he were Secretary of State for Transport, he would never dream of putting the air accidents investigation branch into the Civil Aviation Authority, because they have completely different and separate functions. That needs to be understood across the health service, and it is obviously not well understood at the moment.

• 2 Jul 2025 · Heathrow Substation Outage: NESO Review · Hansard source

  More

  May I follow up on that and ask the Minister whether he will undertake to have a full, frank and open discussion with the relevant directorates within his Department about what it has learned from this disaster? In particular, what exercises, tabletop or virtual, must be undertaken to practise resilience in the event of future such failures? My right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) is right to warn about the increasing fragility of energy security in this country. There is plenty of informed opinion that supports that view.

• 2 Jul 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory: Sovereignty · Hansard source

  More

  Can the Minister tell the House why he thinks China supports this deal?

• 26 Jun 2025 · G7 and NATO Summits · Hansard source

  More

  I very much welcome NATO’s commitment to 3.5% core defence spending, and 5% on a broader definition by 2035, for all NATO member states. However, the Prime Minister and the Government have published spending figures only up until 2030. When will they publish public spending plans for 2030 to 2035? Is it not incumbent on them to show how the target of 3.5% for core defence spending will be met by the Government? Otherwise, it is just an unfunded promise.

• 23 Jun 2025 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  It appears that the House agrees with the Government’s objective that Iran should never have nuclear weapons, but the Government are prepared to will the ends but not the means. This begs the question: who is really running the Government? Why did Lord Hermer’s opinion on the legality of UK involvement in military action become public last week? Was it leaked? Was it briefed? Does this not demonstrate that the Government are paralysed and divided on this question instead of leading from the front?

• 16 Jun 2025 · Iran-Israel Conflict · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that the State of Israel has a declared policy on its nuclear weapons of no first use and that there is no evidence that it has ever misused or threatened to misuse its nuclear weapons in any irresponsible way whatsoever? Does he agree, moreover, that in international law there is the right of pre-emptive military action, and it is hard to imagine how that would not apply in this case, given Iran’s determination to destroy the State of Israel?

• 16 Jun 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T2. May I invite the Secretary of State to come and visit the outstanding Market Field special school in my constituency, which was rebuilt and dramatically expanded under the Conservatives? I have been listening to what she has been saying about expanding special needs provision. Will she give an assurance that the number and capacity of special schools will continue to be expanded and that we will not return to the failed policy of the previous Labour Government?

• 12 Jun 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  May I remind the Leader of the House that when I referred to the prayer tabled by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition against the Mauritius treaty, in early-day motion 1398, she was unable to give an undertaking that this will be debated within the 21-day period laid down by the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010? [ That the Agreement, done at London and Port Louis on 22 May 2025, between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic of Mauritius concerning the Chagos Archipelago including Diego Garcia, should not be ratified. ] However, in a subsequent answer to the hon. Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner), she made it clear that the global ocean treaty would not be ratified until the necessary legislation had been passed. Can we take it that the Mauritius treaty will not be ratified until the House has approved the legislation providing for the very substantial expenditure that it involves?

• 12 Jun 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Before ratification?

• 5 Jun 2025 · Bank Closures and Banking Hubs · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. The fact that there are so many Members in the House this afternoon underlines that this is a very big problem that crosses party political boundaries and all kinds of constituencies. Harwich, Brightlingsea, Manningtree and other places in my constituency are losing their banking facilities. The Government are spending money on trying to revive Harwich high street, but neither the previous Government nor this Government have done anything to secure the banking facilities that are the lifeblood of a high street. I really welcome this debate. I am not sure that post offices are the answer. I think we need to make sure there is a proper bank on every high street.

• 5 Jun 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Leader of the House for the Government’s assurance that the Chagos islands treaty will be debated in the House. May I draw her attention to the prayer of early-day motion 1398, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and others? [ That the Agreement, done at London and Port Louis on 22 May 2025, between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic of Mauritius concerning the Chagos Archipelago including Diego Garcia, should not be ratified. ] Compliant with the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, a debate is required within 21 sitting days of laying a treaty before the House. The treaty was laid on 22 May. Will the Government give an assurance that the motion will be debated in Government time before the expiry of those 21 days so that the House gets a proper opportunity to decide whether the treaty should be ratified?

• 2 Jun 2025 · Strategic Defence Review · Hansard source

  More

  The document says that “this will allow us to grow our nuclear-powered attack submarine fleet to up to 12.” Is not the truth—and let’s speak the truth—that that is the ask to the Treasury, and the spending review has yet to decide what the defence programme will be? I hear what the Secretary of State says, when he says with his full force and sincerity that “we will fund this defence review”, but how will he achieve that without much more significant cuts to other budgets? No Government can afford to spend and borrow much more, if anything at all, so how will he get the necessary cuts through to fund this big increase in defence spending, beyond 3.5% because we all know we will need more than that?

• 2 Jun 2025 · UK Nuclear Deterrent · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister agree that any party that aspires to government in this country should be wholeheartedly and unambiguously committed to our independent nuclear deterrent? I am afraid that that was not always the case when we had a coalition under the Conservatives because of our coalition partners, but I am very pleased that they have repented now. Is it not absolutely extraordinary that a party that now presents itself as some kind of alternative Government cannot even send a single Member of Parliament to sit in this House while we are debating this existential issue for the security of our country?

• 22 May 2025 · EU-UK Summit · Hansard source

  More

  Why were they not returned?

• 22 May 2025 · EU-UK Summit · Hansard source

  More

  I will give way once more, because I need to be brief.

• 22 May 2025 · EU-UK Summit · Hansard source

  More

  What about the extra costs of regulation?

• 22 May 2025 · EU-UK Summit · Hansard source

  More

  I am not giving way again. The basis for recalculating our trade statistics has changed. There is also what was known as the Rotterdam effect. The point is that our underlying economic growth is broadly the same. In Tuesday’s statement, the Prime Minister claimed: “The deal means that British goods that have long been off the menu in Europe can regain their true place, including shellfish”. —[ Official Report , 20 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 890.] He went on to say, and he mentioned this several times: “Under the Conservatives’ deal, shellfish was locked out, but it can now be sold back into the market”. —[ Official Report , 20 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 897.] So what are the statistics for shellfish exports to the EU? They declined very substantially between 2019 and 2021, from 32 million tonnes to 25 million tonnes, largely because of covid, I suspect. In 2022 they declined a little bit more to 22 million tonnes. That is not off the menu —22 million tonnes of shellfish exported to the EU. They went up in 2023 to 23 million tonnes and have continued broadly at that level. They were not locked out. That is just not true. The fact is we have a different trading relationship. Yes, the EU puts up lots of stupid and time-wasting barriers to trade, but that is because it knows this Labour Government are suckers and have fallen into this trap. The Government think they are going to get rid of all these checks. Well, under this new arrangement, we are going to have EU vets inspecting British farms and British food producers without any authority from the British Government, except through some kind of agreement. We also know that the agrifood SPS agreement has not yet been agreed. And why has it not been agreed? There is no start date given by the Government. We have not seen the small print. There will have to be legislation, and we do not know how much we will have to pay the EU for this so-called privileged access. It begs the question, given that shellfish was not locked out, and given that our shellfish exports to the EU remain substantially the same, what else are the Government saying about this deal that is completely untrue? I suspect that, just as they exaggerated and continue to exaggerate the disadvantages of being outside the European Union, they are also grossly exaggerating the economic advantages of this deal. I come back to the point: if the referendum decided one thing, it was that we should no longer have our laws made in the European Union and that we should no longer have to contribute to the EU budget. Both of those commitments, which the Government made in their manifesto, have been betrayed. We have rejoined the single market in food and agriproducts, and we are going to contribute money to the European Union once again. This will have a sting in the tail for the Government. I am afraid that all those so-called red wall seats are now vulnerable to a sense of betrayal among the voters that this Government cannot be trusted on even the most fundamental thing. I remind the Chamber again that 17.4 million people voted leave, which is a good deal more than the 9.7 million who voted Labour, giving them such an extraordinary majority on such a paltry share of the vote—less than 34%. The idea that this is a superior mandate and that the Government now have the right to overrule a referendum result is very dangerous territory. It is playing into the hands of the Reform party, which is the very thing that Labour fears. It is vital that we have the European Scrutiny Committee back. Now that European regulation will be created and applied once again in the United Kingdom, even though we do not have any say over it, we should be able to scrutinise it properly through a proper scrutiny Committee. I would be grateful if the Minister would address that point.

• 22 May 2025 · EU-UK Summit · Hansard source

  More

  She has misled the Chamber!

• 22 May 2025 · EU-UK Summit · Hansard source

  More

  Where in the Labour manifesto did it say that we would start contributing to the EU budget once again? How much are we going to have to pay and when will we know?

• 22 May 2025 · EU-UK Summit · Hansard source

  More

  The House of Lords still has a European Affairs Committee, which held an inquiry in the run-up to the reset. There has been no inquiry into the reset by any Select Committee of the House of Commons, apart from the Business and Trade Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (James McMurdock) are absolutely right that we need to reinstate the European Scrutiny Committee, because there will be a flow of new regulations coming out of the European Union that should be scrutinised in the proper way, as they were when we were a member of the European Union. Without that, there is no proper scrutiny in this House at all. I will now move on briefly to the question of how bad Brexit really was as an economic event. We were told that the British economy would fall off a cliff, that the housing market would collapse, that interest rates would rocket—actually, none of those things occurred. When we left the European Union at the beginning of 2021, the dial hardly moved. Our economy was growing at roughly the same rate as other economies in the European Union.

• 22 May 2025 · EU-UK Summit · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to be able to make a short contribution to this debate. I will not repeat everything I said in last week’s debate, but I want to make this point. The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) said that we do not want to go back to the old arguments we had about Brexit at the time of the referendum and while we were negotiating the trade and co-operation agreement before we finally left, but that is exactly what the Government are doing. Who is trying to turn back the clock? Who has decided that we should rejoin the single market for food and agriproducts, having promised that we would not rejoin the single market? It is this Labour Government. The idea that the Government should be able to wash their hands of their responsibility to voters for honouring the referendum result is an absolute absurdity. Let us remind ourselves that these are the same people who hated the idea of leaving the EU, who campaigned passionately to stay in the EU for ideological reasons, who refused to accept the referendum result, who desperately tried to pervert the referendum result or get a second referendum, and who, in their hearts, have never really accepted the referendum result. They long to rejoin. That is the motive behind this: they know they cannot rejoin the European Union because they know the voters will not have it, so they are rejoining by stealth. That is what they are doing. They have rejoined the single market for food and agriproducts, which means we are effectively back in the European Union as far as the regulation of food and agriproducts is concerned, only we do not have a say on the new laws that will be made and imposed on all British food businesses.

• 22 May 2025 · EU-UK Summit · Hansard source

  More

  Would the hon. Lady like to correct the record, because what she said was incorrect? We can prove it afterwards, and she will have to correct the record afterwards if that is the case.

• 22 May 2025 · EU-UK Summit · Hansard source

  More

  It is quite extraordinary that the hon. Lady does not understand the different between a bitter concession that was forced out of the previous Government, wisely or unwisely, that we deeply resented and was time-limited to five years, and an extension of 12 years, which is at least 2.2 times worse, for something freely given away. I remember when the Labour party used to deride the common fisheries policy as an ecological and social disaster. Now it is embracing it, and so is the hon. Lady. I can only assume that she does not represent any fishermen in her constituency.

• 22 May 2025 · EU-UK Summit · Hansard source

  More

  The point is, if people are prepared to compromise on dynamic alignment for food and agriproducts, what issue of principle will act as a barrier to prevent them extending that co-operation to other products or other fields of European law where they think it is ideologically convenient to do so? The only problem is that, if they think they are currying favour with the European Union by doing so, they will be disappointed, because the EU will simply ask for more concessions without making concessions of its own.

• 22 May 2025 · EU-UK Summit · Hansard source

  More

  As the Government say, NATO is the cornerstone of our defence, and that is how we co-operate with our European partners on defence. EU defence is an add-on that has been in the minds and the ether of the EU since the Maastricht treaty, but it has never come to anything substantial.