Danny Kruger MP: speeches

Speeches

• 14 Sept 2026 · SEND: Cross-Government Work · Hansard source

  More

  Research from the Department for Education confirms that children who move schools frequently often suffer poor outcomes, particularly children with special educational needs. That is why a number of armed forces families—people on average incomes—choose independent education to minimise the disruption that results from their postings. May I ask the Secretary of State, with her new Education team, whether she will publish—perhaps jointly with the Ministry of Defence—research showing whether the introduction of VAT on school fees has led to an increase in the number of in-year moves, especially among service families?

• 14 Sept 2026 · Sovereign Grant Bill · Hansard source

  More

  There is what might be an important innovation in the text of this year’s sovereign grant annual report and accounts, which the Bill refers to and which the Minister is describing. Usually, the description of the sovereign’s role includes the term “defender of the faith”, but that term does not appear in this year’s report and accounts. Instead, the monarch is referred to as the “Supreme Governor of the Church of England”. That is good. The report also says that he “protects the space for Faith within the multi-faith nation.” That is an admirable ambition, but I invite the Minister to confirm that no alteration to the monarch’s role is implied in that change. If there were to be such an alteration, would it be debated properly in Parliament, rather than introduced quietly through these sorts of official reports?

• 10 Sept 2026 · National Resilience · Hansard source

  More

  Resilience is obviously the crucial question for the country, and the Government are right to be focusing on the need to strengthen the centre of Government to achieve that. My concern is about the legislation that has been trailed. According to a leak—presumably from a briefing from the Cabinet Office—reported in The Times this week, the Cabinet Secretary is proposing to take new powers to direct permanent secretaries of Government Departments. Will the Minister confirm whether legislation is planned to change the statutory basis of the civil service? Most importantly, does he think that the Cabinet Secretary should or should not have the power to direct permanent secretaries?

• 2 Sept 2026 · Rewiring the State · Hansard source

  More

  I want to be constructive because I welcome the creation of a stronger centre, with a proper political centre in No. 10 and a corporate HQ for the non-political functions. My question to the Minister is: what is the residual point of the Cabinet Office in this new structure? Some 12,000 people are currently employed in the Cabinet Office and all its quangos. Some of them will be redistributed, but what is the point of that office in future? Likewise, what is the point of the Cabinet Secretary’s post? How is anything going to change when the same people are working in the same buildings, under the same incentives?

• 2 Sept 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q10. I applaud the Prime Minister’s focus on civil society and on support for young people, but the fact is that in his time as Mayor of Greater Manchester youth employment did not improve. In fact, it got worse and no amount of taxpayer-funded support is going to fix that. Will the Prime Minister accept that the way to get young people into work is to provide meaningful tax cuts for businesses and to ensure that people who can work should be working?

• 2 Sept 2026 · Representation of the People Bill · Hansard source

  More

  No, I will not. The second implicit principle that we now need to bring to the surface is that we are one country, speaking a common language, taking part in a single election concerning matters about our country. That means election materials printed in English and the other native languages of the British isles. That might feel like a small thing or a petty one, but it is an important principle. How can we integrate genuinely? How can we bring our divided country together if we do not do our democracy in the same language? The third principle that was implicit before is that people vote in person. We now have a quarter of all votes in the last general election being cast by proxy. That is open to flagrant abuse, and we will restrict that. Lastly, the system depends on the principle that people vote individually, on their own; it is a secret choice. That principle is clearly not fully understood or honoured, as we have seen in the abuse of voting in recent elections—so-called family voting. It is already illegal, so we need to ensure that it does not happen.

• 2 Sept 2026 · Representation of the People Bill · Hansard source

  More

  No, I am not going to give way. It is their right to support a political cause in their own country, where they are registered to vote and of which they are citizens. It is absolutely wrong to traduce them in that way. Some suggest that the Bill will restore trust in politics, which is exactly what is needed, but what they mean is restore trust in the class of politicians and in the political parties that have got us into the mess that we are in— [ Interruption ] — including, I am afraid to say, the party of which I was a part. That is why I left it. We need change. I am glad to say that our democracy is actually working. A new force is arising, and it will put the interests of the British people, not the class of politicians and parties that got us into this mess, first. That is what the populist revolt is doing, demonstrating the effectiveness and vibrancy of our democracy. Let me turn to the amendments that I support, because we do have a real threat to our democracy, and let me make these points as seriously and soberly as I can. Our democracy is underwired by a series of principles and practices that were traditionally historically implicit in the system and therefore did not need to be stated. They did not need to be stated, but now they do, and they need to be stated because over the last couple of generations, we have brought into this country millions of people, many of whom do not understand or honour those implicit principles. Let me go through the changes that are necessary to make explicit formerly implicit principles. The first is that voters belong to this country, that they are citizens of this country with the allegiance and commitment that that brings. There were historically exceptions made for small numbers of Commonwealth citizens and Irish citizens who were in this country. That now needs to change. The number of Irish citizens is still very low, but there are now 2.5 million Commonwealth citizens resident in this country who are entitled to vote in our elections who are not citizens of the United Kingdom. That is wrong; it is time to correct that anomaly.

• 2 Sept 2026 · Representation of the People Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Bill contains a lot of useful tightening of electoral law, and we are having a very important debate this afternoon. It is important that we think about how we police donations from abroad and from home. I pay tribute to the remarks made by the hon. Members for Hexham (Joe Morris) and for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali) about the impact of algorithms, social media and deepfakes. There are clearly threats to our democracy from technology that the Bill does not closely address. Let us face it: the Bill is not concerned with those questions. The claim is made that the Bill will defend democracy, but it is actually a flagrantly partisan attempt to kneecap Reform UK. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) and the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy)—always reliable—who made clear exactly what the Bill is about and who it is aimed at. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Walthamstow, too, for pointing out that the Bill exempts from any suggestion of a restriction donations by trade unions, which have given £17 million to the Labour party in the last five years, £10 million of that at the last election. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] They are delighted; they welcome it. Of course they are happy with that sort of support. This is partisan and highly partial legislation. I put on record my resentment and outrage on behalf of the people who have generously given to Reform UK, whom the Minister called “malign actors”. I wonder who she is referring to. She is talking about individuals, British citizens, who have made money and are choosing to donate it in support of political causes that they believe in, as is their right.

• 15 Jul 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q5. I thank the Prime Minister for his service; he is a good man, and I wish him very well for the future. Politics is not a joke. Every other party in this House, except Reform, has put forward as their candidate in the Clacton by-election a comedian with a dustbin on his head— [ Interruption. ] . It might be—if hon. Members will listen—that a man with his head full of rubbish is a fitting representative of the mainstream parties in this House. I think the Prime Minister endorsed the bin man, but will he clarify who, if he will not put up a Labour candidate, he wants to win in Clacton?

• 6 Jul 2026 · Civil Service Pensions · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the statement. I want to follow on from the question from the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson). Yes, Ministers must take responsibility for the contracts, but ultimately Whitehall fails to deliver value for money on behalf of the public. It is not enough to say that the Government plan to insource more contracts—they cannot insource everything. What are the Government doing to ensure that Whitehall gets better value for money when it does procurement and project management?

• 6 Jul 2026 · Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems · Hansard source

  More

  The money in the DIP is clearly not enough, but it is welcome that some money has been found for defence, and I particularly welcome the new drone facility that is coming to Swindon in Wiltshire. In a genuinely constructive spirit, can I ask the Minister whether she is content with the model of defence procurement we have in this country, and whether she thinks that with a new Secretary of State and a new Prime Minister coming, now is the time to do a lot more to expedite the sort of innovative defence procurement that we will need to make the weapons for the future?