Bernard Jenkin MP: speeches

Speeches

• 26 Feb 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  Will my right hon. Friend give way?

• 25 Feb 2025 · Defence and Security · Hansard source

  More

  When the Prime Minister flies off to Washington, he will go with the confidence that this House and the whole country are behind him and wish him well in that very difficult meeting. We know that this country and our continent face possibly the most dangerous moments that we have experienced since the height of the cold war. I welcome his statement on increasing defence spending, which some of us would say is a couple of decades overdue. Will he accept that the benchmark for the success of the defence review is not some arbitrary percentage of what we are spending, but whether we are spending whatever is necessary to give back to our armed forces the warfighting capability that is the only real deterrence that the Russians will respect? I very much doubt that 2.5% or 3% will be enough; I do not say that as a criticism, but because, as a nation, we must be prepared for that.

• 24 Feb 2025 · Bank Closures: Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend on obtaining this debate, which has attracted a large number of colleagues; he has touched a nerve. May I enter a plea on behalf of coastal towns such as Harwich, which suffer exactly the same difficulties as somewhere like Blandford Forum? In Harwich, the TSB has closed down and the Halifax has closed down, and that is affecting business in the town. Businesses need a banking hub. The Government have really got to come up with a solution, and a single hub representing all these financial institutions must be able to provide some kind of efficiency. I very much look forward to hearing my hon. Friend’s proposals.

• 24 Feb 2025 · Bank Closures: Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  rose —

• 13 Feb 2025 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister agree that this clarifies what the benchmark of success for the defence review must be? As some of the defence chiefs have been expressing, we must be ready, if necessary, to fight a war with Russia if we are to deter it and if we are to be in any position to guarantee the security of an independent and sovereign Ukraine after whatever is agreed between President Trump and President Putin.

• 6 Feb 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  The Deputy Prime Minister’s announcement yesterday is widely believed to herald not just the widespread cancellation of democratic elections, but the introduction of far more powers for Government to centralise decision making and impose it on local authorities, as well as a massive reduction in the number of councillors representing local people in local authorities and the abolition of whole tiers of local authorities for which the Government have no electoral mandate—and that is on the basis of putative savings for which there is no proof, so the chaos of that reorganisation will have to be paid for by cuts in public services. When will the Government provide a full day’s debate on the proposals for devolution and local government reorganisation across the country on a scale that we have not seen for some 50 years? Certainly, that merits a full day’s debate and a vote at the end of it.

• 5 Feb 2025 · English Devolution and Local Government · Hansard source

  More

  May I invite the Secretary of State to publish the evidence that the local government reorganisations will actually, in the long run, save money? There is none, unless she can publish hard evidence. May I also ask her to heed the warnings of the Chair and former Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee—the hon. Members for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) and for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) respectively—who warn about the disruption of abolishing two-tier local government; that it will be a mess; and that the Secretary of State will have to fund that mess out of central Government funding, because otherwise there will be more cuts in public services to pay for the reorganisation? Which is it to be?

• 28 Jan 2025 · Extremism Review · Hansard source

  More

  May I first echo the Minister’s point that we should be grateful to those civil servants who are working night and day to protect us from terrorist threats? I suppose we should also be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for denouncing the document, which certainly emanated from his Department, without making any personal criticism of those civil servants. But does that document not demonstrate that a large body of opinion has completely lost its way on how we deal with extremism and terrorist threats? I urge him to encourage the Department to return to what Prevent is intended to achieve and not get distracted by all this political correctness, given that most of the country have no idea what a “non-hate crime incident” is. We need to return to proper language that people understand, or the Government themselves will be driving people’s disillusion and despair about these matters.

• 28 Jan 2025 · A133-A120 Link Road · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered Government funding for the A133-A120 link road. Thank you very much, Mr Stringer. There may even be a third intervention from a colleague, which I hope will be all right with you. I should have notified you in advance, for which I apologise. I thank the Minister for taking part in this debate regarding the further funding of the new A1331 link road. The top line is that central Government must fund phase 2 of this road. The previous Government committed to do so, and provided 100% grant via a housing infrastructure fund grant of £99.9 million in 2020. Since then covid and inflation have struck, and the grant is now £50 million to £60 million short of what is needed to complete the road. That estimate is hearsay and not official, but it does not seem unreasonable. Essex county council has started the construction of phase 1 but phase 2 is not funded. The Government’s housing targets for Colchester and Tendring cannot be met without this vital new road. This development of 7,500 new homes is very substantial, but I support and understand the need for it. However, the development cannot be justified unless the road is completed in advance. Indeed, without completion of the road, the developers may well stop investing in the houses because the traffic will be intolerable and the new homes found to be unsaleable. The proposed Tendring Colchester Borders garden community—or TCBGC—located between the A120 and the A133 north of the University of Essex, includes new primary and secondary schools, dedicated employment spaces, a nature reserve and a commitment to 30% affordable housing. The new homes will generate a huge increase in traffic. The new direct access to the A120 and the A133 is essential for the viability of the development. It will also significantly mitigate local adverse traffic impacts, both during the construction phase and as the new homes are occupied. The whole project now hinges on phase 2, which will complete the link to the A120. Without phase 2 the A1331 will be a road to nowhere, and only add to traffic on already congested roads. There is no viable or agreed funding for phase 2. I hope I do not have to disabuse the Government of that fact. Many councillors and local people fear that phase 2 will never be completed. So far, the Government have told the county council, “There is no budget” for any additional funding. My first question is this: will the Government please now consider making up the shortfall? I wrote to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government on 11 November and received a reply just last night. These debates have a purpose: they provoke a response. I am grateful for the Minister’s letter, in this case from Baroness Taylor, in which she states: “Essex county council and Latimer (the housing developer) have committed to use reasonable endeavours to procure delivery of phase 2…And in order to safeguard its delivery, there is a planning policy requirement for the developer to demonstrate funding is in place for the full link road.” I put it to the Minister that this really is wishful thinking. Think about it: 7,500 homes and a £60 million contribution to finish phase 2—that is £8,000 per home, and that is just for the road. Where is all the other section 106 funding required for this development going to come from?

• 28 Jan 2025 · A133-A120 Link Road · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister is saying one or two interesting things. First, I have never heard anybody say—I wrote down what she said—that the “local road network is sufficient to support 5,000 homes”. I do not know who has told her that, but I promise her that she has been misinformed. On the point she just made about all the other desirable infrastructure for the development, that has to come out of the section 106 money, which will now, according to the MOU, be diverted to the road. Section 106 money is not unlimited. The possible £60 million for the development—to fund that road—is a very large sum. It is £8,000 per household. Why is she convinced that this is still a viable development?

• 28 Jan 2025 · A133-A120 Link Road · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady is clearly keener on the development than I am, but if the Government come up with some money to make this whole development viable again, I will of course resume my support for it. I would also very much welcome a visit from the Minister, but it remains to be seen whether we will get one. I am afraid that I refused to attend that event in November because I thought it was irresponsible to start a road if nobody knew how it would be funded or when it would be completed. The Minister may, in her response today, refer to a December memorandum of understanding on this matter between Essex county council, the Colchester and Tendring councils and Latimer, but I have to point out to her and to the Department that this is not a binding agreement. Paragraph 1.6 states that the funding of infrastructure, including the A1331 link road, is contingent, and that it “will only be possible if the overall delivery of TCBGC is financially viable.” Remember that it is £8,000 per home just for the road. TCBGC will no longer be financially viable. Financial contributions through section 106 will not be enough to cover the cost of phase 2 of the road along with all the other essential infrastructure plans for this development. What has got to give? Will we finish up with more GP practices closing their lists and not accepting more patients, or more schools without places for local kids? Section 106 funding should be for local infrastructure, not for national infrastructure such as this proposed new A road. The clue is in the term “A road”—it is part of the trunk road network. What is the benefit-cost ratio for this new road? The original funding application said 7:1. A 7:1 benefit-cost ratio is well above the threshold of “very high”, which is only 4:1, so this public investment will give very big payback for the local economy, jobs and tax revenues. Can the Minister provide us with a benefit-cost ration for just phase 1, which the Government have now retrospectively agreed to fund on its own? This was approved via a material amendment to the grant determination agreement that the Government have signed, allowing the county council to build just phase 1 with the grant money so far allocated. The Government agreement makes them complicit in the wishful thinking that this development will be viable. My guess is that the benefit-cost ratio for just phase 1 will be at rock bottom. It will have very little economic benefit at all, and would never have passed muster if it had been proposed as part of the funding arrangements at the outset. Without knowing what the phase 1 benefit-cost ratio is, how could the Government possibly justify turning down the request for funding to complete the A1331 link road? I speculate that the benefit-cost ratio of finishing the road is off the scale because of the sunk costs already committed. Labour has promised growth and new homes to voters, but with infrastructure first—

• 28 Jan 2025 · A133-A120 Link Road · Hansard source

  More

  I would have preferred earlier notice of the intervention, but I will of course give way to the hon. Lady.

• 28 Jan 2025 · A133-A120 Link Road · Hansard source

  More

  If the Government want to achieve anything like their 1.5 million target, they will have to put the money up front for the infrastructure. Here is a shovel-ready deal for the Government to show their commitment to achieve their target of 1.5 million new homes in this Parliament. If the promised 7,500 new homes are not built because phase 2 of the A1331 is not completed, then Colchester city council and Tendring district council do not have a chance of achieving the Government’s ambition. Without phase 2 of the road being completed ahead of the new homes—which was the original intention—the most likely outcome is that the new garden community will be started and then stalled. There is already standstill traffic every day on the A133 where the southern end of the A1331 is intended to relieve traffic congestion. A few hundred new homes will just add to that gridlock. In November, in my letter to the Secretary of State, I made it clear that I have not, until now, felt the need to object to this massive housing development in my constituency. I recognise the need for new housing, but my support is contingent on the principle of “infrastructure first”. If there is no new money from the Government and nobody can say when the road will be completed, I will object, and so will the vast majority of the people of Colchester and Tendring. The Government are shifting responsibility on to the developer and local authorities for the road on which the viability of the whole scheme depends. I therefore ask the Minister—although somehow I do not expect a conclusive answer today—to top up the housing infrastructure fund grant so that it covers 100% of the cost, as originally intended, and to publish the benefit-cost ratio of just funding phase 1, so that we can see what poor value limited HIF funding now represents. I also ask the Government to affirm the principle of “infrastructure first”—I hope the Minister can do so—and ask for their acknowledgment that the section 106 money is not appropriate for funding a major piece of national infrastructure. An A road is being proposed here, not a local road, which is why central Government should fund it. I notified you, very late, Mr Stringer, that the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) might want to add a few words.

• 28 Jan 2025 · A133-A120 Link Road · Hansard source

  More

  I have little doubt that the delegated authority of the three combined authorities will be minded to give planning permission come what may. However, I reckon that the decision would be subject to judicial review if the road is not guaranteed at the time of planning permission being granted. It is a policy decision to ensure that the road is guaranteed, but what else is then taken away? That itself will be challengeable under judicial review, given that it will be so far from the original plan. I am grateful to hear from the Minister that she wants the conversation to continue. Long may it continue, and I hope that we can reach a satisfactory solution.

• 27 Jan 2025 · Fiscal Policy: Defence Spending · Hansard source

  More

  Let me reiterate what the Minister is not quite saying: we are looking forward to a defence review that will set out what we need. It will not then be circumscribed as a percentage of GDP by some artificial ceiling; the Government will spend whatever is necessary arising from the defence review, and his Department will send a defence review to the Treasury untrammelled by any spending constraint. We need to address the desperate threat situation that the country is in.

• 22 Jan 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  The Prime Minister’s Budget raised taxes, borrowing and public spending as a strategy for economic growth. When will he accept the words of one Labour Prime Minister in the 1970s, who explained to a Labour conference that “in all candour…that option no longer exists”, and that the only way to obtain sustained economic growth is by cutting taxes and regulation?

• 22 Jan 2025 · Russian Maritime Activity and UK Response · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for his profoundly important statement, which is immensely reassuring, but may I ask about pre-emption? We all know that Russia is no respecter of international law, and an over-zealous and overcautious interpretation of the legal constraints on the UK armed forces could be very destructive. Are the Government refusing to rule out pre-emptive action against a hostile ship threatening critical national infrastructure, albeit if it lies under international waters, and will he agree that an open mind on pre-emption is a stronger deterrent than ruling it out?

• 20 Jan 2025 · UK-Ukraine 100-year Partnership · Hansard source

  More

  I join others in very much welcoming this declaration of solidarity between London and Kyiv on the future of Ukraine, but there is something surreal in these exchanges. Everything is about to change very dramatically; we all know that this is a kind of pre-positioning statement in advance of Mr Trump assuming the presidency. What assessment have the Government made—the Foreign Secretary has given us no idea of this at all—of what President Trump is likely to do and of how they will respond? How ready are they to ensure that we do not falter and that we step up our support for Ukraine along with our European allies—or will President Trump call all the shots?

• 16 Jan 2025 · Covid-19 Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  May I echo the sentiments of the hon. Member for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer) by expressing concerns about the inquiry? The Minister has been clear that he wishes it was not taking quite so long. It is taking far too long. What can we learn from other countries about how they have conducted their lessons-learned exercise, in order to make sure that the people watching the proceedings, who lost their loved ones, feel that something has been done, and done in good time? This is by no means the first public inquiry that has taken too long. The right hon. Gentleman is in the great position of not being responsible for setting up the inquiry. Will he set out what he thinks we should learn from failed and lengthy inquiries to make sure we do these urgent lessons-learned exercises much more quickly? The next emergency could strike tomorrow. We do not have time to hang around and have these long, blame-fest inquiries with criminal lawyers asking “gotcha” questions to get headlines.

• 16 Jan 2025 · Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse · Hansard source

  More

  The House should be generous towards the Home Secretary, as she has travelled a long way since last week by recognising that there is a requirement for far more inquiries into the towns affected, and we should thank her for that. However, one crucial thing still lacking from her statement today is whether these new inquiries will have the power to summon witnesses and require the production of papers. Only the Home Secretary—or a Secretary of State or Minister—can set up a statutory inquiry. In fact, the Minister specifying an inquiry could set the terms of reference, decide whether it should concentrate on certain towns, set the timeframe and set the budget. She could appoint as many people as she wants to the panel so that different parts of the inquiry could run in different parts of the country concurrently. Is she really ruling out that any of these inquiries should be statutory inquiries? Victims have the real freedom to speak out only in this Parliament, as we have just movingly heard, or in a statutory inquiry, where they are legally immune from consequences for anything they say. Why cannot she provide the victims with those protections?

• 13 Jan 2025 · Gas Storage Levels · Hansard source

  More

  The National Electricity System Operator issued a warning of a 1,700 MW shortfall at the evening peak. It revised that down to barely more than 1,200, and it was running at one point with only 580 MW of margin. How are the Government so complacent about this? It is astonishing. As someone who has followed the energy debate for the past 30 years or so, I warn the Minister that this is almost unprecedented. For him to say that everything is absolutely fine is incredibly irresponsible, when his own Government’s policies are contributing to the tightness of the generating margin. If the lights go out, will he resign?

• 9 Jan 2025 · Public Finances: Borrowing Costs · Hansard source

  More

  Having listened very carefully to the right hon. Gentleman’s responses, I believe that he is making a more significant statement than many of his colleagues might realise. By underlining that there will not be any tax or borrowing increases, he is, in effect, saying that austerity is back, because there is no way that the public finances can be remedied by another Budget of wishful thinking that pretends that increased borrowing and spending will produce growth. That is once again being proved by a Labour Government to be a false way of leading the economy.

• 6 Jan 2025 · Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse · Hansard source

  More

  I also thank the Secretary of State for her statement. I think the House is overwhelmingly behind her in dealing with these difficult subjects and implementing the findings of the Jay report. However, I am listening carefully to these exchanges, and the arguments against a further public inquiry—in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), for example—seem rather thin: “Oh, we have already got too much to do,” “Oh, it probably won’t find out anything new,” “Oh, let the council do it on its own.” I just wonder whether this is in fact a matter of public confidence. If the Home Secretary cannot restore public confidence without a further public inquiry, please will she not rule it out?

• 19 Dec 2024 · Harland & Wolff · Hansard source

  More

  I add my congratulations to the Government for getting this agreement over the line, but when will we get their defence industrial strategy? So far we have had only a rather lengthy statement of intent. We need to reindustrialise our defence industrial base in order to face modern challenges, and that is particularly essential given the threats we face from the east of Europe at this time. That is very difficult to do in government, because the Treasury hates his stuff, as the Secretary of State may already have discovered, but we will hold him to account on what he described as leading this sector into future growth, and indeed on reindustrialising our steel industrial base and so on, so that we have the self-sufficiency that is vital for the defence of the country.

• 19 Dec 2024 · Hospice Funding · Hansard source

  More

  Merry Christmas, Mr Speaker. The St Helena Hospice in Colchester, which serves my constituency and that of the Labour hon. Member for Colchester (Pam Cox), estimates that the national insurance increase will cost it £300,000 in a full year. Can the Minister now give a guarantee that the hospice will be compensated by the Government in full?