Budget Resolutions

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Wednesday 26th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)]

We look forward to the Treasury Committee challenging the Government on the details of the Budget. This Government were elected on a promise to tackle the cost of living and grow the economy, and this is the second Budget in which they have failed to do either. For millions of people struggling with higher bills, all this Budget really offers is higher taxes.

The OBR sets it out in black and white: disposable income and living standards are down thanks to this Budget. Surely the Chancellor should have learned from her first failed Budget that we cannot tax our way to growth. Under the Conservatives, the UK’s tax burden reached its highest level since 1948 and it hit the economy, yet under this Budget the tax burden will hit an all-time high.

There is an alternative to all these Conservative and Labour taxes, and the shocking reality is that the Government know it: a new trade deal with Europe—a major new deal to cut the cost of living and grow our economy. The truth is that Boris Johnson’s Brexit deal has cost the Treasury £90 billion a year in lower tax revenue. Imagine if the Chancellor had adopted our plan to reverse those Brexit costs. Imagine how much more we could be helping families and pensioners across our country with the cost of living. Imagine how we could be ending the cost of living crisis today.

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

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. You are a senior Member of the House, and I made it very clear earlier that no interventions should be made on party leaders.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It gives me a certain pleasure to share some agreement about the need for more resource in defence and resilience with the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western). For all the Government’s talk of increasing spending on defence, the vast bulk of the promise they have made is after this spending period, and the small increase that has been allowed for in these spending plans is not even sufficient to make up for the problems that the Ministry of Defence has managing its own programmes. There is now a huge row going on there about what it is going to have to cut in order to stay within the spending envelop set by the Treasury. It is not a new problem, but it is a significant one, and it is one that underlines the need for the Ministry of Defence to adapt to a very different climate—a much more warlike and adaptive system for acquiring military kit.

The great theme of this Budget and the last, to which the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington referred, is growth. I think we need to be realistic that the growth rate was flattened by the global financial crisis of 2008-09, and our productivity rate never recovered from that period. It is a puzzle. It is partly because our economy is more and more service orientated, which is labour intensive, but I think it is also because we have expanded the public sector so dramatically in recent years.

Public sector productivity is way below what it was before covid—it has not recovered. The productivity of the national health service is lamentable. These are issues of leadership, organisation and efficiency. The Government need to look at getting much better value for money for what we are spending, given that this country now has the highest ever peacetime levels of public expenditure.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

Will the hon. Member accept that some of the blossoming of the public sector in this country is as a result of Brexit, for which he advocated over very many years?

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I am tempted not to be drawn into the rather silly Brexit debate that seems to go on. It was notable that the Government spoofed towards the idea that they would make Brexit the scapegoat for the economy, but actually very little has come out from them on that. The Liberal Democrats may think, “Oh, if only we had a customs union to deal with the European Union, we would be £90 billion better off,” but that is fantasy economics. Why does the hon. Gentleman think that the Treasury is not saying that? Because it is not true—it is complete rubbish.

The idea that we have lost 4% of GDP as a result of Brexit is based on a very flimsy piece of evidence: a report put together from 13 forecasts made in 2016 and 2017, all before the Brexit deal was completed and we had a free trade agreement. It has never come to pass. In fact, a respected commentator, Wolfgang Münchau, said that we were approximating along growth rates in line with France and Germany before we left the European Union, and that our leaving the European Union was the “economic non-event” of the century. We have been approximating along at about the same growth rates. The very dire forecasts were based on the idea that there was going to be a 25% decline in our trade—that has not happened. There has been a marginal decline in our trade with the EU—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Ministers on the Treasury Bench might be more interested in having their private conversations, but it is making it very difficult to hear the hon. Member.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I am very sorry that those on the Front Bench do not like hearing this, but there is no “get out of jail free” card through realigning with the European Union. It looks as though the European Union wants to charge us money for the Brexit reset. In fact, the expenditure line—what we make in net contributions to the EU since we left—has absolutely crashed. We are now contributing very little, and that money is available to the Exchequer. If we rejoined the European Union, we would have to find another £20 billion for contributions to the European budget—no thank you very much.

The real point about a Budget is that it is when the country hears from the Government about their judgment. It is not about lots of little schemes—the £400 million extra being raised from council tax does not even cover the margin for error on annual public spending each year. It is almost irrelevant; it is a window dressing about punishing the rich. Incidentally, if we go on every Budget making sure that the top deciles contribute far more than the bottom deciles, we will finish up with a more and more punitive tax and benefit system that will be more and more damaging for economic growth.

The question is: did the Government get the judgment right last time? The answer was obviously no; they said that those tax increases would be a one-off but they have had to come back for much more, because the effect of their measures has damaged economic growth. What we are missing from this conversation is a real discussion about the long-term growth of public expenditure and what we can afford. The “Fiscal risks and sustainability” report, produced by the OBR in the summer, was a sort of two-day wonder in the public debate. We then went back to discussing the very narrow question of how much headroom we should have in just one year—as though aiming for that little hole is the answer for the long-term economic viability of this country. What a ludicrous way to run a country! It is about as un-strategic as you can get.

As a consequence, we are living in a fool’s paradise. The Government have repeated their errors. They are punishing wealth creators and padding out the welfare system, which is decreasing incentives for work. The tragedy of the nearly 1 million young people who are not in education, employment or training is getting bigger. The national minimum wage will reduce opportunities for young people, because it will no longer be worth pubs and hotels recruiting young people, given that there is no cost advantage to recruiting students as opposed to full-timers. Perhaps that is what the Government want, but it will not be good for employment for young people, nor good for growth and enterprise.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)]

As the mother of somebody in that age bracket who works in a pub, I just wanted to stand up on his behalf and say thank you to the Chancellor.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I will not be thanking the Chancellor and her Government on behalf of all the young people who thought they would be able to get jobs in the hospitality sector, but now will not get them. Students will not get those part-time jobs to help to pay off their student loans. These issues have to be balanced—[Interruption.] I am not going to give way again.

The point is that this Budget will prove, once again, that higher spending, higher borrowing—the debt is still going up, by the way—and higher taxes are not a route to growth, prosperity, employment, happiness and security. This is a Government proving, once again, that socialism does not work. We are heading for a terrible reckoning on the basis of the long-term fiscal forecasts produced by the OBR. There is going to be a crunch.

Last year the Government sent the gilt rates rising. This year the gilt rates are way above the level that was provoked by the Liz Truss Budget. These two Budgets are much worse than the Liz Truss episode, and they have raised—[Interruption.] The Liz Truss episode was short-lived; this is permanent. It is Government policy to inflict higher borrowing costs, higher debt, higher taxation and lower growth on our country—[Interruption.] I would be grateful if those on the Front Bench could contain themselves. This Government have made permanent a fiscal and growth crisis, and we will rue the day that we elected them, because once again they will prove that Labour Governments always trash the economy permanently.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kit Malthouse]

That is a very good way of putting it. The other way of putting it is to say that there is a huge attempt to gaslight the country and, I am afraid, Labour Members about what is actually being proposed.

Let me give another example. We are told that the Government are trying to encourage business investment, yet the Blue Book contains a £1.5 billion reduction in incentives for business investment. The contradictions are clear, and I urge Members to read the Blue Book, because the Chancellor is relying on us not reading the leaked book. Sometimes it is quite impenetrable, and sometimes it is quite difficult to understand, but there are some key things that I want to point people to, if I may.

First, I ask Members to turn to paragraph 1.3 of the executive summary, which tells us that, contrary to what the Chancellor said, debt will rise over the next few years. Debt moves from being

“95 per cent of GDP this year and ends the decade at 96 per cent of GDP, which is 2 percentage points higher than projected in March”.

That was the first thing she said that was incorrect.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

Obviously, the Labour briefing says how much the previous Conservative Government borrowed over their period in office, but given that we inherited a situation where £1 in every £4 of public spending was being borrowed, it took a considerable period of austerity to get annual borrowing down. During that borrowing, we accumulated a lot of extra debt.

[Kit Malthouse]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. It is worth remembering that if we had not gone through a period of austerity post the financial crash and the mess that we inherited, we would not have been able to rescue the economy during covid. We would not have had the headroom that allowed us to re-leverage the country in emergency circumstances. I wish that we now had the same foresight.

Paragraph 3.13 of the Blue Book points out that, in the OBR’s view, there is nothing in this Budget that will do anything for growth. The OBR has declined to revise its previous output predictions because the Budget does nothing for growth.

Finally, the fourth bullet point in paragraph 1.28 points out that the tax-to-GDP ratio will become the highest it has ever been in this country and will constrain business incentives for the future. I urge colleagues to read the Blue Book—the truth lies therein.

We find ourselves in a position where we have a Budget that is trumpeting itself as a triumph, but which is nevertheless producing the highest tax rate of all time, completely flat and anaemic growth, and inflation and interest rates—they are in the Blue Book—that will be higher for longer than they otherwise would have been. The outlook has worsened since March, to the extent that the OBR makes a point of it.

Ukraine

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

I welcome the support that my hon. Friend’s community is providing in her constituency. That has happened right across the country. She is right to focus on the impact on families. In targeting that infrastructure, Russia is deliberately targeting the heating and lighting of families across Ukraine as they go into winter. We have just announced—I announced it in Kyiv—a £42 million energy support package that is designed exactly to keep homes warm and support the resilience of the Ukrainian people through the winter.

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

Given that time is the most precious commodity in war, and that, as former head of MI5 Eliza Manningham-Buller said, Britain may already be at war with Russia, why have we allowed Russia so much time to build up a stock of 155 mm shells, for example—three times the quantity of the entire European and American stock of 155 shells? How long does Ukraine now have to hold out against Russia, which has mobilised its entire economy and put it on a war footing to win the war at almost any cost to Russia itself? Do we not have to up our long-range weapons and other military support to help Ukraine finish and win this war?

[Yvette Cooper]

As I just set out, the UK has stepped up support for Ukraine this year, providing £4.5 billion of military support. We will need to continue providing military support to Ukraine, but we also need to encourage as many other allies as possible to do likewise. When meeting the Ukrainian Prime Minister and President in Kyiv, I was struck by how much they saw the UK as a leading ally, but they recognise the need for international partnership and support. We need to continue escalating support. That is why we also need pressure on the economic side as well as on the defence side. It is only by that combined concerted effort that we will be able to affect the course of the war.

UK Ambassador to the US: Appointment Process

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Thursday 11th September 2025 Commons Chamber

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

May I just point out that it was as plain as day, after the exchanges between the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, that Lord Mandelson could not possibly carry on in his role? Why did the Prime Minister delay—or did he have to wait to be told what to do by Morgan McSweeney? Who is going to be the new ambassador, and how quickly will the new ambassador be appointed at this absolutely critical time, when Russia is testing the defences of NATO countries and we are showing such a weak response?

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Gentleman, who I am sure has visited our embassy in Washington on many occasions, will know that we have an excellent and dedicated team there, as well of course in the Foreign Office in King Charles Street in London. They are working on many aspects of that crucial security, defence and economic relationship. We are working diligently in preparation for the state visit, and I commend them for that work.

The hon. Gentleman asked about new information. I have been very clear: in the light of the additional information and emails written by Lord Mandelson, the Prime Minister has asked the Foreign Secretary to withdraw him as ambassador. I have gone into the particular items, and in the light of that, and mindful of the victims of Epstein’s crimes, Lord Mandelson has been withdrawn as ambassador with immediate effect.

British Indian Ocean Territory: Sovereignty

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This Government took early action—even before the conclusion of the deal—to ensure that that route was closed down by the memorandum of understanding that we reached with St Helena, for which I again thank St Helena. Again, Mr. Speaker, I was rightly scrutinised by this House on that. My hon. Friend is absolutely right on that point, and that is why we have done this deal.

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

Can the Minister tell the House why he thinks China supports this deal?

[Stephen Doughty]

I have been very clear on this: the United States, our Five Eyes partners and India support this deal. Mauritius was one of the few countries not to join the belt and road initiative. It is very clear that the deal is in the interests of our security and that of our allies—otherwise, the United States would not have agreed to it in the first place.

Middle East

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I am confident, through my engagement with the United States and the discussions that I have had, including in the White House last week, that this is not about regime change. I should remind my hon. Friend that the Israelis too have been clear that they are not attacking the civilian leadership in Iran.

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

It appears that the House agrees with the Government’s objective that Iran should never have nuclear weapons, but the Government are prepared to will the ends but not the means. This begs the question: who is really running the Government? Why did Lord Hermer’s opinion on the legality of UK involvement in military action become public last week? Was it leaked? Was it briefed? Does this not demonstrate that the Government are paralysed and divided on this question instead of leading from the front?

[Mr Lammy]

No.

Iran-Israel Conflict

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Monday 16th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

Every colleague I have spoken to over the last few days has emphasised diplomacy and de-escalation; I reassure my hon. Friend of that.

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

Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that the State of Israel has a declared policy on its nuclear weapons of no first use and that there is no evidence that it has ever misused or threatened to misuse its nuclear weapons in any irresponsible way whatsoever? Does he agree, moreover, that in international law there is the right of pre-emptive military action, and it is hard to imagine how that would not apply in this case, given Iran’s determination to destroy the State of Israel?

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman brings tremendous experience to these matters, but he will understand that it is right and appropriate that I leave that to the international lawyers.

UK-Ukraine 100-year Partnership

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. People forget that before this war, Ukraine was effectively the breadbasket of Europe. This is an issue that I spoke about with Ms McCain of the World Food Programme. It is hugely important that those grain supplies are able to leave the country. It is hugely important that they are not sabotaged. That is one of the reasons why the pillar on the Black sea is important: there must be the means for the grain supplies to leave Ukraine. The work continues.

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

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?

[Mr Lammy]

I say to the hon. Gentleman—in whose question is a seriousness about the cost of war and what it takes to negotiate—that when I met Donald Trump, my sense was that he did understand acutely the importance of this war, and he struck me as a man who is not prepared to be a loser. It is becoming clearer and clearer that Putin shows no sign whatsoever of wanting to negotiate, and we must therefore continue to support Ukraine as strongly as we can. The hon. Gentleman will also have picked up—I read about it in the papers—that there was a sense previously of a rush towards negotiation. That has moved over time somewhat, and that must be right as a new Administration pick up the files and fully grip this, understanding of course that we all want peace.

British Indian Ocean Territory: Sovereignty

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Despite the attempts to constantly whip up the idea about Chinese influence, the deal contains specific precautions to prevent foreign forces. I remind the House again that Mauritius was one of the only countries that did not join the belt and road initiative. Its ally is India, not China.

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

The Government clearly want to dismantle legacies of empire. Why, then, do we think it is so important to attach the Chagos islands to Mauritius when, in fact, that link was only established when both territories were acquired by the French empire and later by the British empire? Why do we not listen to the Chagossians, instead of imposing the legacy of empire on them?

[Stephen Doughty]

I have engaged with many Chagossian groups. The hon. Member will know, as I have said multiple times, that there are a range of views across the Chagossian community. He is perfectly able to look at the legal judgments himself. The fact is that the Government wanted to secure the long-term operation of the base, our national security and our interests. We have engaged with our partners and secured a deal, which his Government failed to do.

Israel-Gaza Conflict: Arrest Warrants

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Monday 25th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Hamish Falconer]

I will not rehearse too much the answers provided on 2 September and on numerous occasions in the Chamber since then. We have suspended, with one exemption—to which I am happy to return—all the arms that we are selling to Israel that could be used in Gaza. That suspension, in our assessment, also covers the west bank and Lebanon. We are taking action in accordance with our commitments under international humanitarian law, and we will continue to do so.

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

Can we be absolutely clear about what the Government are saying? It seems that the Government are not saying that there would be an automatic arrest should Benjamin Netanyahu arrive in this country, but they are saying that there would due process. Can the Minister confirm that

“customary international law…does not permit the arrest or delivery of the serving Prime Minister of a non-State party to the ICC”?

So the Minister is committing himself to due process but not to arrest. Am I correct in my understanding?

Ukraine: 1,000 Days

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Tuesday 19th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I am pleased to have the opportunity to reply to my hon. Friend. I was once the baby of the House—I was much thinner and much better looking then. I remember sitting in his place 25 years ago. He is absolutely right: the volunteer spirit across this country has been extraordinary. People are making so many missions to Ukraine. They are facing danger as they go into Poland to provide support on the borders. It is quite incredible. Of course, I congratulate all those in his constituency on the work that they have done.

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

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement, but I cannot hide my disappointment that he has nothing to say about freeing the hands of the Ukrainians to use our long-range missiles. How can he lament the attacks on Ukrainian infrastructure when he will not allow the Ukrainians to use our weapons to strike back and retaliate? He says all the time, “We’re doing all we can,” but we are not, and we are now foot-dragging. We used to lead; now the Americans are in the lead. Can I invite him to change the paradigm of this war and lead from the front by setting an example—as the former Defence Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson), described—as we did in the past? Otherwise he is foot-dragging, not leading.

[Mr Lammy]

I am not foot-dragging. We are leading, but we must be careful not to discuss these plans in detail in the House. I gently say to the hon. Member that we must not abuse the fact that this is a democratic Chamber that Putin and others pore over. Trust me, we are leading in that debate. We want to put Ukraine in the strongest possible position. I was discussing that with the Ukrainian Foreign Minister just yesterday in New York, and I will meet the Ukrainian ambassador after this statement. We will ensure that they are in the strongest possible position.