Bernard Jenkin MP: speeches

Speeches

• 11 Sept 2026 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the speech from the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn), who is an example of what we have seen throughout this debate, going back to the early 2000s: people peeling off from supporting assisted dying in principle and, certainly, peeling off from supporting this Bill. I am a case in point. I came into the Chamber to listen to Lord Falconer’s Bill in 2014 absolutely determined that I was going to vote for assisted dying. I sat through the debate and ended up voting against, because I thought that the arguments were not made in favour of the Bill. The second reason we should throw out this Bill is that it keeps changing. Even now, it is not settled. Even now, its advocates want changes to it. They are stuck with the reality that if the Parliament Act is invoked, they will only be able to invoke the Bill as it stands today. They will not be able to have their changes. So if in doubt today, the House must vote no. Thirdly, the question is far bigger, it turns out, than just a matter of conscience or an isolated matter to be decided. It is a massive question that affects public policy and has major public expenditure consequences. That has convinced me that we really should not see another Bill like this one until we have had a Government Bill go through the process of proper scrutiny within Government, with all the consequences laid out and dealt with. It must be a responsible and accountable Secretary of State that presents the Bill; it must not be a Back-Bench Bill. Maybe there should be a citizens assembly on this question—it is a subject that would lend itself to a citizens assembly. [ Interruption. ] Well, it would not take away any power from this House. This House would still be able to decide, but it would inform the debate in a way that the debate is still not informed. My mother and father passed away in recent years, and I am so grateful that my mother never had to confront this question. She often said, “Oh, I just want to die. I am just a burden on the family.” Though she would never have qualified for this Bill, I am so grateful that there were never any circumstances that would possibly have confronted her with this question. I advert to another conversation. I have a very dear friend—someone who has become a mentor—who is a very interesting, clever, intellectual, determined and courageous lady. She has scoliosis of the spine. The last time I went to see her, there she was, hardly able to sit up and in constant pain. We have open conversations, so I asked her, “If assisted dying were available to you, would you take it?” Without hesitation she said, “Oh, yes.” When I asked why, she said, “Because I am a burden to my family.” I said, “Well, I have been voting against assisted dying. I am going to have to rethink my position.” Then she said, without hesitation, “Oh, I don’t advocate it.” She understands the complexity of this, and she knows that it opens a can of worms that we really have not understood fully. I urge colleagues in the House to vote against the Bill today.

• 13 Jul 2026 · Death of Ann Widdecombe · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Home Secretary for her statement, and her tribute to Ann—it was extremely moving, if I may say so. Can I also point out the unfortunate statistical fact that a Member of Parliament is more likely to meet a violent death than a member of His Majesty’s armed forces or a member of the British police forces? I ask you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to assure Mr Speaker that none of us doubts his personal commitment to our security, but this remains a very relevant problem. None of us wants our homes to be turned into fortresses, but maybe more people need to be encouraged to, for example, put security gates on the front of their houses, and to have security cameras recording what is going on, rather than just relying on the Ring bell that happens to be on their front door. Can I also pay my own tribute to Ann? Much has already been said. I shared 18 years of her parliamentary life, alongside my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). There were disagreements about Maastricht, and about women candidates—my goodness, she loathed me trying to promote women candidates in the Conservative party. I maintain that she was wrong about that, but she was right about many things. Her maiden speech, about the Trident nuclear deterrent, was made at a time when the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats were a bit wobbly on that subject. What an emblem of her patriotism, and her fervour for strength and clarity of purpose! I served in the shadow Cabinet with Ann when the Government were introducing the Human Rights Act 1998 and pressing for close adherence to the European convention on human rights. She was the one member of the shadow Cabinet who said, “We should oppose this”; members of our shadow Cabinet were saying that we should relish joining the ECHR. Her prescience has often invited derision from others, but she was right on that score. We in the Conservative party are learning the lessons that she left behind during her life; maybe other parties will learn them, too.

• 9 Jul 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  The Leader of the House did not mention in the forthcoming business that the House is about to be asked to decide on whether to issue a writ for a farcical and unnecessary by-election. [ Interruption. ] Have we had it already? I beg your pardon; I was not in the Chamber. What opportunity do I have to raise the question of how the by-election should be paid for? Many of my constituents live in the tendering district and will be inflicted with the cost of the by-election. It seems most unfair that this political stunt should cost council tax payers in my constituency or in Clacton.

• 8 Jul 2026 · Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  There is a national conversation about who will be the next Prime Minister or whether there will be a by-election in Clacton, but there is no such national conversation about the existential threats to our freedom and democracy. It is democracy across the western world that is failing this challenge. The autocracies are winning at the moment. We are facing circumstances where Russia may well be struggling in the Ukraine war, but that makes it more unpredictable. What will Putin do as he feels that his political support is slipping away and Russia’s vulnerability is increasing now that there are petrol queues in Moscow and explosions in Russian cities? There is a growing awareness—it has even been said in the last 24 hours by a serious propagandist for Mr Putin—that this is no longer a special military operation; it is a war. The circumstances are changing as we speak, and I am afraid that a lack of urgency is being shown by the whole House, apart from, say, the Defence Committee and the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy. This is how we get into wars—by being unprepared for them. We need to change our whole concept of deterrence from the old concept that somehow just having a nuclear weapon keeps us safe. No, we must have a much more flexible ability to respond to changing circumstances. What will happen when the Russians move into a Russian-speaking town in one of the Balkan states? What will we do as our soldiers start being killed? Will we start letting off nuclear weapons or will we have analogous, appropriate, flexible military capability to be able to respond and escalate at pace? Our inability to escalate is the greatest danger at the moment.

• 6 Jul 2026 · Patient Safety Review · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman. Recommendation 1 in the Dash review says that the new National Quality Board should “avoid unfunded mandates being imposed on the system without due consideration”. Public inquiries have certainly made well meaning but unaffordable recommendations—I think of the Francis inquiry recommendation on blanket standards for minimum staffing—but it is wrong to see safety as a cost in opposition to other benefits. The cost of safety failures is astronomic, with NHS clinical negligence costing £3.6 billion a year, despite all the public inquiries. Effective safety management is about the cost-effective management of risk, not risk elimination at any cost. If the air accidents investigation branch did not balance costs with effective risk management, aeroplanes would not fly. Can the Minister therefore point out which of HSSIB’s recommendations have been too expensive to implement? If not, where is the justification for abolishing HSSIB? Neither the NQB nor the CQC should control investigations. The AAIB cannot be prevented from making independent recommendations by the Civil Aviation Authority, the Transport Secretary or airlines themselves. Why should the NQB, which will be subject to political direction, be allowed to decide what safety recommendations should be made and what should be investigated, as Dash recommends? On page 31, Dash incorrectly states: “HSSIB was not able to retain the maternity programme because the Health and Care Act 2022 does not make provision for maternity investigations under HSSIB.” Why have the Government accepted that assertion as true? It is wrong in fact and law. The new statutory HSSIB did not take on maternity and newborn safety investigations, because they were commenced without the safe space protections, so their evidence is available for legal proceedings. That is not how HSSIB operates. Since 2023, HSSIB has been conducting its own maternity investigations. Indeed, when the Amos review was established, it took on the relevant investigations from HSSIB and then relied on HSSIB for assistance with them. With sufficient resources, HSSIB could conduct all maternity investigations much more effectively than the maternity and newborn safety investigations programme. Amos reported that MNSI investigations are not trusted by families, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) was saying, and are not consistent or effective in identifying learning or providing accountability. Amos also says that families should have access to an independent investigation if they lose confidence in the local investigations. Without HSSIB, who will provide those independent investigations? Finding 6 accuses HSSIB of having “expanded” its “scope of work beyond the original remit…For example, HSSIB was originally established, along the lines of safety investigatory bodies in other industries, to look at specific cases or incidents of severe harm, but it has since broadened its work into making more systemic recommendations.” That is what Dash says. It is complete nonsense. HSSIB is exactly equivalent to the AAIB, the marine accident investigation branch and RAIB, and was, like them, set up to conduct systemic investigations. That is why they are such effective bodies. The Health and Care Act 2022 does not limit HSSIB investigations to individual incidents. There is no reference whatsoever to “severe harm”, as Dash puts it, in the 2022 Act. It was always intended by Parliament that HSSIB should make systemic recommendations arising from the investigation of specific incidents or groups of incidents. I can say that with authority because it was my Select Committee that recommended HSSIB in the first place, and I also chaired the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee on the draft legislation, so how can Ministers give any authority to the Dash review, which claimed that HSSIB has expanded its remit, when it has done no such thing? Recommendation 3 proposes: “Most investigations into safety incidents should continue to be managed within provider organisations”. This really is the fundamental flaw in Dash. Recent maternity investigations conducted by trusts have highlighted the deficiency of provider-led investigations, as Ockenden and Amos have pointed out. Do the Government accept that investigations by provider organisations are inherently conflicted? Just ask the clinicians, patients, families and patient safety organisations what they think about trusts marking their own homework. None of them has confidence, because providers are keen to protect themselves from litigation and reputational damage. How can Ministers accept the Dash recommendation that we should rely on investigations conducted by provider organisations?