Ukraine

Ian Roome Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I shall be as brief as I possibly can be. I very much welcome the debate, although it did come as a bit of a surprise. I think one of the reasons why not many Members are in the Chamber is that they were not really prepared for it, the Prime Minister is not here and there is no proper motion. Out of 400 Labour MPs, fewer than 20 are in the Chamber, which I think projects an unfortunate message for a Government debate on Ukraine. I welcome it nevertheless, but I look forward to a proper debate on a proper motion to which everyone will have to turn up—there might even be whipping—to hear what the Prime Minister has to say, particularly about the deployment, which I will come to.

I will not repeat the speech I had the privilege of delivering in the debate granted to me by the Backbench Business Committee on 4 December. However, I will reiterate that Russia cannot win this war militarily; it will only win because of western weakness—our weakness and lack of resolve. If we support Ukraine, Russia cannot win. That is why its diplomatic efforts are so vigorous.

There is far more that we could do. In particular, we could rearm our own armed forces much more quickly. I get smiles from Government Front Benchers when I say that, because they agree with me, but the Government are not delivering the scale of defence spending increases that we need.

[Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

Briefly, because I want to be as swift as possible.

[Ian Roome]

Just today it has been reported that 18 tankers from the Russian shadow fleet have passed through the channel since the Defence Secretary’s statement to the House on 7 January on curtailing Russian oil exports. Does the hon. Member agree that we must show the Russians that we mean what we say?

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I completely agree. There should be a NATO operation to intercept every ship that comes into NATO’s operational area in the north Atlantic and the North sea around the north of Scotland. We could choke off a significant amount of this, but we are not doing so; we are letting it carry on. Getting all of Europe’s NATO powers in line with that is a problem, but let us do it. Together, the NATO nations in Europe could show Trump that we are prepared to deliver for European security, but we are not doing that at the moment.

It is essential for us to discuss the so-called coalition of the willing. We all know that there are already some armed forces personnel in Ukraine providing advice, logistics, training and intelligence, and supporting planning and headquarters—that sort of thing. There is probably more that we can learn from the Ukrainians about fighting the Russians than we can teach them. But is 7,500 troops in formed units—a brigade—supporting a combat battalion or two what we are talking about? I have grave doubts about that, including on the rules of engagement and how we would provide core security. Would we not just be presenting a lovely target for the Russians to attack? They might not attack it directly—it might be “accidental”—but it would blur areas and create all sorts of problems if we were so overt. I have my doubts, unless we have a force in there that can actually fight and defend itself against the Russians. How we would respond in such a situation, were Russia to escalate, is a very open question.

I have no desire to be an armchair critic of the Government’s policy, and this brings me to the main point that I want to make. It has become fashionable to believe that Parliament has a right to tell the Government when and when not to deploy troops, but there is no constitutional basis for this whatsoever. In fact, the Prime Minister assumes his office, takes the seals of office and takes the responsibility upon himself about when to direct the armed forces into harm’s way. There is no constitutional impediment to him doing that.

What we saw in the Syria debate—I commend the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor) for his excellent speech—was a humiliating abdication of the Government’s responsibility. They knew that it was right to deploy armed force in Syria, but they then volunteered not to do so because of a finely balanced debate and vote in the House of Commons. The Prime Minister stood there and said, “I get it.” This was really O-level politics and O-level statecraft. It was ridiculous, and the hon. Gentleman is completely right to say that it projected weakness when we knew that the Russians were supporting the Syrian Government in deploying chemical weapons and murdering their own people. It was also weak of Obama to say this was a red line and then fail to do anything about it. We projected weakness and we invited Putin to try again, and I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman about the consequences.

The point is that the Government have the responsibility to make this judgment. They cannot pass this judgment on to 650 armchair generals jaw-jawing in the House of Commons when we do not have the intelligence or the assessments. We can express our views and we can hold the Government to account for the outcome of what they decide, but I put it to the Minister that in that debate on Syria we learned that a Prime Minister does not resign when he loses such a crucial vote. Part of that was to do with the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. If he had made it a vote of confidence, would he have won it? If not, would there have been a general election? No, there would not have been. He might have had to resign, but there would not have been a general election. We were at a very artificial point.

I put it to the Minister that if the Prime Minister were to bring a vote to the House of Commons this time and lose it, he would either have to resign and hand over to somebody else or call a general election, because we no longer have a fixed-term Parliament. We are back to real accountability, and the accountability that counts is at the ballot box, in the final analysis. The one power the Prime Minister has is to call a general election and ask the King to dissolve Parliament. If he had lost such a vote, that would be the only honourable thing for him to do. He cannot come here and engage in the kind of abject, humiliating abdication of responsibility that we saw before.

On the other experience, the Government of the day won the Iraq vote, and I happen still to think that was right. We have a democracy of sorts in Iraq, and Iraq is no longer a Russian puppet, but who in this House still believes that was the right decision? The polls went in favour of the Iraq war at the last minute, and maybe that helped Tony Blair get the vote over the line. Was that a good basis for making a decision? No, it was not. Either the Government make such a decision for themselves and hold themselves accountable to this House, or the Prime Minister should not accept the seals of office and become Prime Minister, because that is the job.