Bernard Jenkin MP: speeches

Speeches

• 16 Oct 2025 · Official Secrets Act Case: Witness Statements · Hansard source

  More

  Given that the deputy National Security Adviser is a civil servant and therefore accountable, who was holding him to account for the job that he was doing? May I just emphasise that I am sure he was doing his level and honourable best in the circumstances in which he found himself, but it is really beyond belief that—as became apparent from the third inquiry, where the Director of Public Prosecutions was asking for a clear statement that China was a national security threat—nobody was capable of telling him, “Well, actually, you’d better say that”? The idea that he was somehow beyond any influence from anybody is laughable. One can only conclude that this conspiracy of omission was something that the Government wanted because they did not want this trial to go ahead.

• 15 Oct 2025 · Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier today, the Prime Minister promised that certain papers would be published as soon as they could be, but he did not give a time. Has there been any indication of when those papers will be published? We are still waiting for them.

• 15 Oct 2025 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  Given that time is the most precious commodity in war, and that, as former head of MI5 Eliza Manningham-Buller said, Britain may already be at war with Russia, why have we allowed Russia so much time to build up a stock of 155 mm shells, for example—three times the quantity of the entire European and American stock of 155 shells? How long does Ukraine now have to hold out against Russia, which has mobilised its entire economy and put it on a war footing to win the war at almost any cost to Russia itself? Do we not have to up our long-range weapons and other military support to help Ukraine finish and win this war?

• 13 Oct 2025 · Security Update: Official Secrets Act Case · Hansard source

  More

  We know the very basic facts, which is that the Director of Public Prosecutions asked for a statement from the Government to clarify that, at the time of the offence, China was a threat to national security. He says in his letter that such an assurance, or evidence, or a statement from the Government were not forthcoming. We know that the Government withheld that vital element of the case. The Minister is shaking his head, but who decided that, in the words of the DPP, it would “not be forthcoming”? Somebody decided that. He seems to be saying that it was the deputy National Security Adviser who is somehow accountable for making those decisions, but I question that point. To whom are they accountable, if not to the National Security Adviser?

• 11 Sept 2025 · UK Ambassador to the US: Appointment Process · Hansard source

  More

  May I just point out that it was as plain as day, after the exchanges between the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, that Lord Mandelson could not possibly carry on in his role? Why did the Prime Minister delay—or did he have to wait to be told what to do by Morgan McSweeney? Who is going to be the new ambassador, and how quickly will the new ambassador be appointed at this absolutely critical time, when Russia is testing the defences of NATO countries and we are showing such a weak response?

• 9 Sept 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way. I am afraid my question goes back to the cost of the deal, which will hang around the Government’s neck like an albatross for the rest of their time in office. We know that the Government Actuary says the gross cost is £35 billion. Please can the Minister enlighten the House and help hon. Members to understand his own calculations? What is the meaning of “social time discounting”?

• 9 Sept 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  On the previous question of how much operational independence we will really have, can my right hon. Friend comment on point 4 of annex 1 of the agreement, entitled “Mauritian Security Review”, which requires us to consult Mauritius before any “construction or emplacement of any maritime installation” or “any proposal for development in the land territory of the Chagos archipelago”? It also states that Mauritius shall conduct a security review, and that our permission to carry out works is dependent on the outcome of the Mauritius security review. We do not have operational independence under this treaty. It then goes through the dispute process, and there is no decisive way of deciding anything unless there is agreement between the two Prime Ministers. It is a completely inadequate agreement.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  rose —

• 9 Sept 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. Does it not speak volumes about the real nature of this Government that despite facing a fiscal crisis and potentially a crisis in their finances—they want more money spent on health and benefits, because that is what they do—their priority is listening to leftie lawyers pontificating about decolonisation and committing billions of pounds of long-term liabilities to give away and lease back something that we already own? Does that not say something about the extraordinarily myopic preoccupations of this Government? Of course, we told the Foreign Office to get lost.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  rose —

• 9 Sept 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  On that point, will the Minister give way?

• 9 Sept 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I should clarify that what I quoted from article 4 of the treaty does not apply directly to Diego Garcia; it only applies to an area beyond Diego Garcia and for the development of land territory that is on the archipelago but beyond Diego Garcia. I should have made that clear. I inadvertently misled the House, and I apologise for doing so.

• 1 Sept 2025 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  The House should be grateful to the Secretary of State for giving this statement today, because it underlines how the Government are determined to keep this issue at the top of the British political agenda. He gave quite an optimistic assessment of how we, the Ukrainians and her allies, are doing in Ukraine, only inasmuch as Russia cannot win this war. The risk—something I hope he will emphasise to President Trump—is that the west is losing the peace, and that by losing the peace we are losing our own security. In the words of his own strategic defence review, we need to mobilise the British people to have a national conversation as to why we need to step up our efforts. Are we really giving Ukraine enough? I do not think we are.

• 14 Jul 2025 · State of Climate and Nature · Hansard source

  More

  I am as passionate as the Secretary of State about achieving net zero across the world and about the decline in species in our natural environment, but that cannot be the only thing we worry about. I do not know whether he has had time to read the “Fiscal risks and sustainability” report produced last week, but it shows that the cost to the public Exchequer of achieving net zero will be 21% of GDP. We know that an argument is going on inside the Government and inside the Labour party about this very issue. This is a question of balancing the risks, because if the Government run out of money because they are overspending, there will not be any money to spend on reversing climate change.

• 14 Jul 2025 · Northern Ireland Veterans: Prosecution · Hansard source

  More

  That point cannot be overstated, because many Northern Ireland veterans already suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder and other mental health problems. I speak as a vice-president of the mental health charity Combat Stress. The very idea that there are people who are nowhere near a prosecution or potential prosecution but are now haunted by not only the trauma of their service but the possibility that they will be dragged to a court and exposed in some way, with their families saying, “Daddy, did you really do something wrong?”—it cannot be overstated how utterly brutal this is. It is a deliberate campaign by those who are trying to bring these prosecutions.

• 8 Jul 2025 · Road and Rail Projects · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In my 33 years in this House it has always been the practice that a statement of this nature would be made alongside a White Paper, which would be available in the Vote Office to Members as soon as the Secretary of State sits down. There is no White Paper in the Vote Office to explain the detail of the Government’s decision making. Is there anything you can do to elucidate from the Secretary of State whether a White Paper will be forthcoming and when that will be?

• 8 Jul 2025 · Road and Rail Projects · Hansard source

  More

  How can I possibly welcome the Secretary of State’s statement when, by her own admission, she has cancelled the A12 widening scheme and said nothing about the dualling of the A120 between Braintree and Marks Tey? How does she intend Braintree, Colchester and Tendring to deliver the massive new housing targets imposed by the Government with no new road or rail infrastructure at all?

• 7 Jul 2025 · Government Performance against Fiscal Rules · Hansard source

  More

  Has the Chief Secretary seen the much longer-term forecasts by the OBR for the growth in public spending and the growth in debt rising to more than 250% of GDP in decades to come and the debt interest rising to 12% of GDP? Now that there is a gaping hole in the Government’s financial plans because of the votes last week and the U-turns on welfare reform, why does he think that he can play for time, instead of acting to give the markets confidence before they lose confidence?

• 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?