Ukraine Update

Debate between Alex Chalk and Bernard Jenkin

Thursday 26th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Alex Chalk]

The Chief of the General Staff also went on to make the point that it could not be in a better cause. Indeed, it is important to make the point that weapons that we supply have the effect of degrading the very adversary who was noted in the integrated review. We are fighting this just war not only to stand up for the international rule of law, and to make a statement that might is not always right and that we cannot remake borders by force, but to degrade the forces of our principal adversary as identified in the IR.

The Secretary of State has said, in respect of our Challenger 2 tanks, that he will now, at his instruction, ensure that more hulls are brought to a greater state of readiness, so that, as part of our overall land fleet, we have Challenger 2 squadrons ready to deploy in the defence of this nation.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I thank my hon. and learned Friend and the Government for the exemplary way in which the UK Government have led on all this. They have made a very significant and considerable change in the atmosphere over the past few days. But what about France? What discussions are taking place with it? If we want NATO unity, it is now the odd man out because it is not sending tanks. Does the Minister agree that the side that can mass its forces with sufficient speed is the side that will turn the tide of the war? Should we not be doing more? Why are we not sending all our tanks that are available—all our Warrior vehicles? We can replenish our armoured vehicle fleet over time, but the Ukrainians need our stuff now. What else will those vehicles be used for?

[Alex Chalk]

Let me deal with the issue of France. It is, of course, a matter for sovereign nations to make their decision, and we would respectfully point out and welcome the decision of the French Government to provide Ukraine with the AMX-10 highly mobile tank. It is not their main battle tank, as my hon. Friend points out, but it is, none the less, one that has been used very recently in reconnaissance missions by the French army and was deployed as recently as the Barkhane mission in west Africa. That comes together with a number of very sophisticated and lethal bits of ammunition. We would, of course, welcome further progress, but, ultimately, it is a matter for them.

My hon. Friend raises an important question that will doubtless be in the minds of many people, which is why not give more. That is something that we will keep under review, but we do have to balance it with the point that the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) made about UK sovereign capability and the ability for us to deploy tanks in the defence of our own borders. These are difficult judgments to make, but we are satisfied that our initial contribution, which has helped to galvanise and catalyse further international contributions, is the right donation to be making at this stage. We keep all these matters under review.

Representation of the People (Young People’s Enfranchisement and Education) Bill

Debate between Alex Chalk and Bernard Jenkin

Friday 3rd November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jenkin]

Not at the moment.

Another argument put forward in favour of lowering the voting age is that young people aged 16 to 17 can drive, join the armed forces or marry but cannot vote. Those facts are, at best, only half truths. For example, people can drive from 17, not 16. Although young people can join the armed forces and marry at 16, they can do so only with their parents’ consent, and in the armed forces they cannot be deployed to frontline combat.

There are a great many other things that young people cannot do before 18. For example, they cannot buy alcohol or cigarettes. Are the other side arguing that they should be allowed to do so? Young people are also not treated as adults by the law, for they are dealt with by youth courts if they commit a crime, they are given different sentences from adults and they are sent to special secure centres for young people, rather than to adult prisons.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

Voting sits alongside another great civic duty, jury service, and yet young people I speak to overwhelmingly reject the notion of 16-year-olds sitting in judgment over close friends or family. Does my hon. Friend agree that lowering the voting age would create a bizarre and unconscionable discrepancy in that regard?

[Mr Jenkin]

I do; I think it is a distortion. All these examples make it clear that society—

UK's Nuclear Deterrent

Debate between Alex Chalk and Bernard Jenkin

Monday 18th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jenkin]

I will move on to the next point, Mr Deputy Speaker.

My right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary is fond of describing Trident as an insurance policy, but I counsel him to use that phrase sparingly, because the maintenance of our nuclear deterrent is so much more than just an insurance policy. It is not a premium. That description “de-emphasises” the way in which the deterrent is continuously used, shaping our global security environment, and expressing the character of our country and our national will and resolve. It does not sufficiently emphasise its deterrent quality, which is not to deter terrorism or much lower forms of combat.

The invention of nuclear weapons has undoubtedly ended large-scale state-on-state warfare, and I would even be so bold as to suggest that were we to disinvent them, we would be inviting the resumption of such warfare. I am not sure that human nature miraculously changed after 1945, but something in the global strategic environment certainly did, and we no longer see that large-scale state-on-state warfare.

Members of the Scottish National party have made much of the cost of Trident today, but let me ask them this question: how cheap would it need to be before they regarded it as good value for money? I do not think that that is an argument with which they are prepared to engage. They are against nuclear weapons whatever the cost, and they are perfectly sincere about that, so I invite them to stop bellyaching about the cost, because it is an irrelevant part of their argument.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the use of huge figures in isolation is at best unhelpful and at worst misleading? When applied across a 35-year time horizon, such massive figures would, in fact, be dwarfed by our international aid budget.

[Mr Jenkin]

My hon. Friend is right. The cost of maintaining the nuclear deterrent on a year-on-year basis is much less than our aid budget. A year’s cost of the Trident missile submarine system is the equivalent of one week’s spending on the national health service. It is also about a quarter of our net contribution to the European Union, and I look forward to saving that cost.

At about 6% of the overall defence budget and about 2% of GDP, this weapons system represents extraordinarily good-value expenditure, given that it deters large-scale state-on-state warfare. It is a matter of great pride that our country has inherited this role, and, precisely because we do not want every NATO country or every democracy to have nuclear weapons, it is our duty as global citizens to retain the system, contributing, as we do, to the global security and safety of the world.