Defence

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge]

I am very grateful to my right hon. and gallant Friend, who speaks with his experience as not just a former Defence Minister but someone who served in the Royal Navy and still does as a reservist. I ran an SME—it was not a defence SME, but I know the stress of running a company in tough times, and my heart goes out to companies like the one he talks about, which will be struggling right now. They are selling abroad but getting nothing from the British military at a time when we face intense threats. That is not good enough.

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

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

rose—

[James Cartlidge]

I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin).

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I draw my hon. Friend’s attention and the attention of the House to the other fundamental structural flaw in the method the Government have adopted for planning defence: the aspiration after 2029 is only an aspiration. The Treasury has agreed to no spending line in its own forecasts and figures beyond 2029, and yet the defence investment plan is a 10-year plan. How can the Treasury agree to a 10-year plan when it has not agreed to any funding for defence after 2029? It is just an aspiration.

[James Cartlidge]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour, who ran rings around the Prime Minister yesterday so expertly. He is absolutely right. The Red Book details to the penny how much this Government will spend on their U-turn to abolish the two-child benefit cap by 2031. There is no line on what will be spent on defence in those years, so how on earth is the MOD meant to change? The key is that the Government are not going to go to 3% in this Parliament. I am going to conclude by setting out five steps, but before I do that, I will give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis).

--- Later in debate ---

[Al Carns]

Let me go back to the point about the 20,000 troops. The motion calls for more troops, but it says nothing about how they would be recruited, trained, housed or equipped. It does not even begin to answer the most basic questions about what those troops would actually be used for. It proposes funding defence through unrelated policy changes, as if national security can be managed like a spreadsheet, and it pulls together issues that do not form a coherent strategy. That is not a defence plan—it is a list.

What is most revealing is the position of the Conservative party. One week, the Leader of the Opposition says that we should send jets “to the source” in Iran, and that we are in this war

“whether we like it or not”.

The following week, she says,

“I never said we should join”,

and when the shadow Defence Secretary, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), is asked for a clear position, he says that there are no easy answers. Those are their words, and they tell us everything. They are armchair generals rushing to judgment one week and retreating from it the next—rushing towards escalation, then stepping back from it the next. That is not leadership, it is not judgment, and it is certainly not how to make decisions about putting British service personnel in harm’s way. Those decisions demand seriousness, not commentary or hyperbole from the sidelines.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I share the respect of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for the Minister and his experience, but the two statements from the Leader of the Opposition that he read out are not incompatible. The fact is that we would not have joined in the military action that the Americans and the Israelis initiated, but it is undeniable that the war has now come to us. What does he think is happening in London? Did he not hear the deputy chief of the Metropolitan police on the radio this morning talking about the rising Iranian threat that is now domestic in our own capital? This war has come to us. As Leon Trotsky said, Madam Deputy Speaker,

“You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.”

[Al Carns]

I hope war is not interested in you personally, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The Iranian threat—Hezbollah, Hamas, lethal aid in Iraq and Afghanistan, and supporting terrorist organisations around the world—is not lost on me at all. However, I will be really clear: I have served in every staff college in the career structure of the British military, and I have always been taught that there are three key things. First, you have to have a legal mandate; secondly, you have to have a plan; and thirdly, you have to think to the end. If the Opposition think that we should be involved in the conflict, then by all means they should say so, but if they do not, they should be balanced.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I listened to the Minister’s remarks with great care. Many of the things that he says, he says with great sincerity, but some of the things he says, I do not believe that he quite so fervently believes. I ask him, being the hon. and gallant Gentleman that he is, to consider whether criticising those who criticise Government policy on the basis of the question “How dare you criticise the Government at such a serious time?” reflects the same kind of attack made by supporters of Neville Chamberlain against Winston Churchill and his supporters even as late as 1940. As they went through the Division Lobbies in May that year, they taunted those coming through voting against the Adjournment of the House: “Quislings”, they said.

To implicitly brand my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition as some kind of warmonger who is out of control—that is what the Government are basically saying—reflects exactly the gibe thrown at Winston Churchill: that he loved war so much, he was not objective. Yet he was the one who appreciated the dire emergency of the situation being faced, even as the British Expeditionary Force was losing in France and the Norway campaign was proving such a disaster.

I appreciate that it is perhaps obligatory for the Minister to say these things about the two-child benefit cap for the satisfaction of many of his Back Benchers, but we are now spending so much on welfare and so little on defence. Maybe the two problems have something to do with each other. If we could just spend the same on in-work or out-of-work benefits for people of working age as we were spending before covid, we could save £50 billion a year, but that does not seem to matter to the Government at all.

The Minister talked, I am sure with great sincerity, about how important it is to have a system that works “for them”—I think I am quoting his very words; he said that we need a social system in this country that works for the poorest people in our society. Well, the system over which the Government are presiding is failing. We now have a rising and terrifying number of young people who are not in education, employment, or training—the so-called NEETs. Even those operating on the frontline of food banks—I visited a food bank recently—understand that if we keep indexing benefits with inflation, but do not index tax allowances, that means that people pay more tax at lower rates of pay, and if we increase benefits, such as by removing the two-child benefit cap, and do not uprate the tapers to protect the better-off who are receiving universal credit, we create a disincentive to work.

When I first visited food banks, which I think was under Tony Blair’s Government—they were not originated under the Conservatives—there used to be a tiny number of people who were permanent beneficiaries of food banks; the vast majority were in a state of transition, and that persisted until quite recently. At the food bank I visited at the weekend, 80% of beneficiaries are now permanent clients, because they say there is no point in them trying to take work, as it does not pay. The system is not working for them, because we are spending too much on welfare and we have not cut taxes enough.

The next question is: are we at peace or at war? Much of the discussion in the Liaison Committee was about that. I cannot find a Minister who denies that we are at war, and I am afraid that makes the question of whether we choose to get involved rather redundant. We are involved, and we cannot help being involved. Our sovereign territory is involved, because it is being attacked. Indeed, we have been involved in a war in defence of the west, NATO and Ukraine probably since as far back as the original invasion of Georgia and Abkhazia, because the nature of Putin’s regime had become apparent by then. They are quite explicit: Lavrov has said that Russia is at war with NATO, so that war is already here.

What kind of war is it? Well, it reflects all kinds of conflicts, including hybrid conflict, which has often been discussed and is of such a varied nature, and what one might call cognitive conflict, which is the capacity and determination of Russia and China, and probably Iran, not just to interfere in our democratic processes, but to corrupt the truth. This is aimed at reshaping the societal, economic and informational environment, at undermining people’s faith in democracy and democratic values, and at destroying the faith of our voters in our democratic system.

The question now is: what are we doing to fight back? Well, what are we doing? I know that in bits of Government, many small parts of the Government are at war. There are some wonderful people in the Ministry of Defence who are sweating the night hours to do things that are of crucial importance.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

I am concerned about one problem that may arise. We have now got to a stage where the Government have given permission for the Americans to strike back against, for example, missile batteries launching at targets that might include our own bases. I am not clear what would happen—and I hope it never has to come to this—if our bases were successfully attacked and damaged. Are the Government still saying that only the Americans should retaliate against those batteries, or should the RAF have a role as well? I am not anxious to escalate, but I do not see where the logic lies in America being able to retaliate, when our own armed forces cannot, following an attack that has successfully damaged one of our own bases.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

The fact is that the whole of the deterrent stance of all the NATO nations is very substantially—I will not say hopelessly—dependent on the good will that the United States shows towards us. That was the basis on which the SDR was written. George Robertson—the noble Lord Robertson of Port Ellen—has said in public that one of the constraints of writing the defence review was to assume that the United States was our closest ally and could be relied upon. Whether that will be true in the future, we do not know. Some things that have happened have very much shaken our faith in that, but the idea that the Government should choose this moment—this very moment, when we are begging for American support in Ukraine to hold back the tide of possible Russian aggression across the whole European front—to further alienate President Trump from NATO seems to me like a bit of a tactical error.

Going back to the second world war, when Anthony Eden, the Foreign Secretary, complained to Winston Churchill that the United Kingdom did not seem to have an independent foreign policy, Churchill said, “No, we don’t. We’ve got to do what the Americans want us to do in order to get them to come into the war.” I am afraid that we are not in a great position of strength to dictate to the Americans, and pontificating about their moral judgments or their interpretation of international law seems to me totally counterproductive for the security of the United Kingdom and our European allies. To answer my right hon. Friend’s question, we need a deterrent stance.

But what is the Government’s response? Well, we are waiting for a plan, but that plan is a long time coming. Drones have transformed the last few months, but the Government have not kept up with the change. We are still waiting for a plan, and it is not enough.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I do not think many people in the House fully appreciate how utterly profound the drone revolution is. It means that in Ukraine, they do not have to mass troops to defend in the way they once did; they can mass drones. If we want to defend NATO, if we want to defend London and Akrotiri, we need to be able to mass very cheap drones in order to get that protection and deterrent capability, so that the option of pushing large numbers of troops over a NATO frontier at some stage is not available to Russia.

[Stuart Anderson]

I thank my hon. Friend for that important point. How warfare is fought is catching people by surprise—we are seeing that played out in the middle east at the moment—and we have to be prepared. We have stood with our head and shoulders high on the world stage, and I want to see us continue to do that.

I want to throw out some numbers. We say that the Great British Army has always been the best army of its size. In 1981, we had 333,000 troops. In 1997, the number went down to 210,000, and it went down to 174,000 in 2010. It is currently about 138,000. With the use of technology, it is not just about mass, although I would always be happy to have a larger military. We need to make sure that we are able to work in a changing environment and that we have the operations to do that. The world as we know it is changing, and we must pick that up very quickly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

If I may, I will make just one more point and then give way. Moreover, Labour claims repeatedly that it is introducing the largest increase in defence spending since the cold war, but that is simply not true. In the current financial year, it has actually done precisely the opposite. It has introduced a £2.6 billion efficiency savings programme that viciously cuts operational spending across the British armed forces at the Treasury’s behest. That means fewer ships at sea and longer times to regenerate them, as with HMS Dragon; fewer training hours for our pilots; and fewer exercises on Salisbury plain.

So here we are, with two wars under way, and nine months later this completely dysfunctional Cabinet is still unable to publish a forward equipment programme for the British armed forces. Do Labour Members not realise that they can also see this in Moscow, in Beijing and, indeed, in Tehran? If Labour Members believe, as I always have, that the role of the armed forces is to save life by preventing war and by persuading any potential aggressor that they could not succeed were they to attack us or our allies, how in God’s name are we supposed to deter the likes of Vladimir Putin or Xi Jinping if we are unable to publish the forward equipment plan for our own armed forces that is now nearly a year overdue? On what planet do Labour MPs think that this is an act of credible and effective deterrence?

To be fair to the Government, they have published something today. Just a few hours ago, they published the defence diplomacy strategy. They have been working flat out on it for months. They have been absolutely knocking themselves out to get that one away. I apologise to the House that I have not had the opportunity to read it yet, but I hope that it contains one very firm recommendation: “If you are going to maintain effective diplomatic relations with your strongest ally, the United States, whatever you do, don’t send to Washington an ambassador who had to resign from the Cabinet not once but twice for effectively being a crook and who has now had to be fired third time around.”

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Francois]

I cannot; I do apologise.

The international skies are rapidly darkening, and the response of the Labour Government is, first, to cut operational spending in our armed forces by £2.5 billion and, secondly, to be completely unable to say when they would reach spending of 3% of GDP on defence, which all three authors of the SDR have said repeatedly is fundamental to delivering it. Until they do that, they cannot deliver it. Thirdly, because of the utterly dysfunctional relations within Government, with a Prime Minister whose authority is shot to pieces, they are totally unable to produce the defence investment plan, even though the House rises and we go into purdah for the Scottish and Welsh elections 48 hours from today.

This has become a farce, but it is a very dangerous one. We are now, quite literally, a laughing stock in Washington, and there is no way we can possibly deter our adversaries if we carry on like this. It is just not a credible defence posture to maintain, so I conclude by saying to Ministers: you have had long enough to produce it; if you can’t do the job, get out of the way.