Bernard Jenkin MP: speeches

Speeches

• 30 Jun 2026 · Defence Investment Plan · Hansard source

  More

  Can I return to the efficiency savings that are forecast to be made? There are to be savings of £10.7 billion—£7 billion to come from resource spending and £3.7 to come from capital. Apart from some very vague headings, there is no indication in this document of where that money is going to be saved. Can the Secretary of State issue a written statement as soon as possible to set out exactly how those savings will be made? Otherwise, I have to rather agree with the Chair of the Treasury Committee, the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier): we have all seen these accounting tricks before under previous Governments of both colours, and the savings are very rarely made. The Secretary of State will have to factor that into the negotiations with the Chancellor of the Exchequer—whoever that may be—in the forthcoming spending round, and I take what he has said about the next spending round to be a very significant point.

• 30 Jun 2026 · National Maternity and Neonatal Investigation · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Secretary of State keep an open mind as to whether it is right to abolish the Health Services Safety Investigations Body, which was specifically designed to provide for a duty of candour? Clinicians would be obliged to give evidence to HSSIP; they could not refuse, and there would be criminal penalties if they did. As we have already established, the duty of candour, as conceived in the Hillsborough law, does not work, and I suspect there will be no improvement unless HSSIP is allowed to carry out completely independent investigations that have proven that they can carry the confidence of the public, patients and clinicians. Will the Secretary of State keep an open mind about keeping HSSIP?

• 23 Jun 2026 · Puberty Blockers · Hansard source

  More

  As a consultant paediatrician, my hon. Friend will be able to give a definitive view on this matter. Some who campaign for this treatment and therapy argue that the effects of gene therapy are reversible. To what extent are they reversible? Should we be treating this as a reversible treatment? My hon. Friend has referred to permanent damage. Can we try to agree across the House at least on this matter: that gene therapy applied to children is not reversible?

• 17 Jun 2026 · Draft Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 17 Jun 2026 · Draft Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a whole of Government report.

• 17 Jun 2026 · Draft Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I am making a speech, which I am entitled to do. In the case I mentioned, where there is supposedly a strategy, we seem to be planning to build a garden community without the crucial link road being in place before the house building starts. That is a big problem. Will the Minister take back to the Department the question of whether the Government agree about what “strategy” means? Are they integrating the much more agile definition of strategy into the way they operate, so that we get better public policy outcomes? That is what the whole process was intended to achieve. Incidentally, the Minister might draw on the national strategy playbook drawn up by the Cabinet Office in the first 12 months of this Government, which is apparently being implemented across Government. I do not feel that this type of reform is reaching into the entrails of his Department, which is responsible for so much that requires strategic thinking.

• 17 Jun 2026 · Draft Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I think I am within the scope of the regulations, Ms Jardine, because the amendments relate to the use of the term “strategy” in the primary legislation. I do not think I am out of order, but I will not dwell on the matter or test your patience. I have made the point.

• 17 Jun 2026 · Draft Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  It is about the draft regulations, because they include the word “strategy”. The Minister cannot escape the consequences of that. The report to which I referred was a Liaison Committee report—

• 17 Jun 2026 · Draft Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 17 Jun 2026 · Draft Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for the opportunity to say a few words. Can we first admit that the Government’s policy of building all these houses is not going terribly well, and that it is not a great success strategically? Nobody in the house building industry or in local government believes that the Government will achieve their target. I do not hold the Minister himself responsible for this confusion, but the question at the centre of my remarks is: what do we mean by the word “strategy”? I have worked on this subject during my time as a Member of Parliament. I chaired the Public Administration Committee—and then, the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee—for nearly 10 years, during which we produced a stream of reports about strategic thinking and strategy in Government. At the end of the last Parliament, the Liaison Committee, which I chaired at the time, produced a report about how Select Committees could help and enable Government to have more strategic thinking behind their policy and implementation, and we recommended a definition for strategy. In this Government’s response to the report, they said that they would adopt that definition, but I do not see any evidence that they have. These spatial strategies are, in truth, plans, not strategies. A strategy is an active process—a doing word. When someone creates a strategy, they do lots of planning, and lots of plans will go into it, but a strategy constantly evolves in the light of events and changes in circumstances. One of the reasons why so many things go wrong in Government is that people think that they are being strategic, but actually they are just writing down a plan and forgetting about it, rather than thinking rationally. The Government response to the Liaison Committee’s report said: “Strategy in government is the coherent mobilisation of capabilities, levers, resources and partnerships towards successfully achieving public policy outcomes.” Where is the evidence of that in, for example, the Government’s policy on house building? In my constituency, there is an ambitious project to build 7,500 new homes. I am grateful to the Minister for receiving delegations making representations about that.

• 15 Jun 2026 · Defence Investment Plan · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister realise how utterly discredited the Government now look? We all understand that a majority of Members of this House want the Government to take the necessary steps to find the extra money that is necessary for defence, but it is the failure of the Prime Minister to manage his own party that is at the root of the problem. Will changing the leader make any difference?

• 4 Jun 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  First, I add my voice to the tributes to Sir Alex Younger, who died so young and is such a great loss to the nation. What consideration are the Government giving to re-establishing a European Scrutiny Committee? The dynamic alignment that the Government are proposing is bound to give rise to a large number of regulations coming into force in the UK. As they will have direct applicability and direct effect, they should at least be scrutinised properly. I draw the Leader of the House’s attention to the report published today by the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, which I Chair. It gives an example—the Customs (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2026—of how badly the Government can handle such legislation. The regulations were laid very late, and they are being changed while they are being renegotiated with the European Union. Is this a portent of things to come, and does it not underline the need for a European Scrutiny Committee, which could look much further ahead than the Standing Orders governing my Committee allow?

• 4 Jun 2026 · Russian Attacks on Civilian Infrastructure · Hansard source

  More

  Is it not clear that this escalation is a portent of what Russia intends to do as it begins to lose this war? Only a few months ago there was a general view that Russia was winning, but now it is clear that Russia is losing and it will run out of money before it can annex Ukraine. What are the Government doing to ensure that we are properly prepared to face down this escalation? It is all very well Ministers coming to this House, wringing their hands and condemning these atrocities, but what are we going to do to deter this atrocity and further Russian escalation? Will the Minister make an assessment of the St Petersburg international economic forum? It set out various scenarios for Russia in the future, some of which included the threat of nuclear weapons, so how will we deter that?

• 1 Jun 2026 · Health Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am most grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way, and I congratulate him on his appointment. He has inherited this policy—it is not his own. I assure him that the abolition of the Health Services Safety Investigations Body is a dreadful mistake, because which other investigative function in the healthcare system is completely unconflicted in what it does? By abolishing HSSIB he is taking its functions into the CQC, which is a regulator and compliance enforcer, not an investigator, so that there is no longer any independent, unconflicted body conducting healthcare investigations. Has he consulted the royal colleges about this? I have not spoken to a single royal college that is in favour of the abolition of HSSIB.

• 1 Jun 2026 · Health Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Clause 59 states: “The Health Services Safety Investigations Body is abolished.” It is going to be abolished.

• 1 Jun 2026 · Health Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Well, no, and the abolition of HSSIB is an example of that. It was the one organisation that could independently hold any part of the system to account. If its functions are transferred to the CQC, those functions will be compromised in their independence —and they are explicitly intended to be compromised. The Government set great store by the Dash review, but it is a flawed and dishonest document that misleads the public by what it says. The Dash review is not about patient safety. It puts far more emphasis on quality. It elides quality and safety, which are not the same thing, even if many people believe them to be so. That concern is reflected by the fact that there are too many recommendations flying around and too many resources being diverted to recommendations that the NHS does not want to implement. All those recommendations are coming from this plethora of public inquiries that Secretaries of State keep setting up. Surely we want to replace the public inquiry system with something much more effective, as we did for rail accidents. After the Ladbroke Grove rail crash, we replaced public inquiries with the rail accident investigation branch in the Department for Transport. There has not been a public inquiry into a rail accident since the Ladbroke Grove inquiry, because we have the rail accident investigation branch. There has not been a public inquiry into an aviation accident since 1972, because we have the air accidents investigation branch. Why can we not have the same principle for safety in healthcare, instead of this ridiculous Dash review, which is full of falsehoods and misleading statements? I will give the House just one example of that. The review says: “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.” That is wrong. It had to give them up, because it did not have the capacity to do them.

• 1 Jun 2026 · Health Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I very much welcome the idealistic vision that the hon. Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar) sets out for us, but I am afraid that it is far from what is in this Bill. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), I shed no tears for the demise of NHS England; it was never an organisation independent of politics, but always looked upwards at the political leadership and did what Ministers wanted. It was created as an unnecessarily complex organisation. However, I ask myself whether reasserting the principle—unspoken in this debate—that somehow the man in Whitehall knows best is not reverting to the previous failures of the system, when we need to be looking for a much more organic and local system. I speak in this debate to lament the demise of HSSIB, as proposed in this Bill. It is a profound mistake. It represents a downgrading of safety as a priority in this Government’s health policy, because HSSIB is the only organisation that can independently investigate safety incidents in the NHS and is not conflicted by any other function or role. It does not compromise any other functional role in the NHS, yet the Government have decided to get rid of it. It will not save any bureaucracy. This tiny organisation costs a few million pounds, yet it is pioneering a new system of safety management in the NHS that the NHS culturally barely understands. We forget that NHS reform is really about people and leadership, not management structures and organisational structures. HSSIB was one of the catalysts that was beginning to transform attitudes towards safety. It was a safety valve for clinicians and patients and their families. It was the one place they could go to tell their story, without fear nor favour, in a safe space, and it was instructive.

• 1 Jun 2026 · Health Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the HSSIB question. The Dash review accused HSSIB of exceeding its remit. That is completely wrong in law, and it was always intended to look at systemic problems across the system. The new investigation function in the CQC will not be able to do that, because it will not be independent.

• 23 Apr 2026 · UK-EU Relations · Hansard source

  More

  Is the House right to understand that the Government believe that the economy has grown significantly less—measurably less—as a result of leaving the EU, and that this is one of the purposes behind the reset? [Hon. Members: “Yes!”] I hear Government Members saying yes. Could the Government then set that out, with all the evidence and arguments proving the case? Looking at the evidence, the British economy grew at about the same rate as France and Germany when we were in the EU and, since we left, we have been growing at about the same rate as France and Germany; in fact, this year, the British economy is growing faster than Germany’s. Where is the evidence that Brexit was economically damaging? Will the Minister publish a proper statement on that?

• 21 Apr 2026 · Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Member give way?

• 21 Apr 2026 · Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment · Hansard source

  More

  I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman, whom I know as a friend across the House, as we have worked together positively on many things. I served on the Privileges Committee that studied the Boris case and reached a conclusion upon it. If the hon. Gentleman wants to help the Prime Minister, I would be rather wary, if I were him, about drawing parallels between Boris Johnson and the present Prime Minister.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  May I just point out that the developed vetting process has always been highly protected because otherwise it would not work? People would not give information to the developed vetting process if they thought that any detail of it was likely to be disclosed, or even if they thought that the result—the assessment of low, medium or high risk—was likely to be exposed. That is why the previous Labour Government wrote section 3 into the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010: in order to prohibit that disclosure. If the Prime Minister is saying that developed vetting information will now be available to Ministers on a routine basis, would he not be undermining the very process upon which we depend for our national security?

• 13 Apr 2026 · North Atlantic Submarine Activity · Hansard source

  More

  Can we be absolutely clear from this statement, which I very much commend for its candour and bluntness, that these two GUGI submarines have now left UK waters? They were carrying out hostile acts in UK waters, and I cannot believe that many people in the MOD are happy with the limp-wristed response of the rest of the Government to this episode. Has the ambassador been summoned for a public dressing down? Have we expelled any Russian diplomats in retaliation? Are we making it clear to our Russian adversaries that if they mess in our territorial waters, we will demand their immediate surrender, and that they should surface and be escorted to a British port or we will open fire, or at least fire a warning shot? Just saying, “We see you,” is not going to be enough. That is not going to bother President Putin one jot, and he will carry on doing exactly what he is doing until we are prepared to escalate this and show that we are prepared to deter what he is doing to our country.

• 13 Apr 2026 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the Minister on so valiantly trying to explain the inexplicable and reconcile the irreconcilable. I do not want to detain the House by quoting the whole Monty Python dead parrot sketch, but this is now an ex-treaty; it is no more; it has shuffled off its mortal coil. Coming back to the Chagossians, why can the Government not just honour what the Court has decided about the right of return? Why are they now trying to frustrate the survival and safety of the Chagossians who have returned, taken there by my good friend and former Conservative MP Adam Holloway, who has organised the expedition despite the Government? Why are the Government now mounting operations and sending police officers and customs operators to frustrate the process of safety equipment going to the expedition to support the Chagossians? Why have they blocked a water purifier and even medical supplies? They have blocked a fast boat that would provide emergency evacuation, so these people are more at risk as a result of the Government. Is that the Government’s policy, after all the wrongs that have been done to the Chagossians?

• 13 Apr 2026 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  They are not illegal.