Danny Kruger MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 4 Dec 2025 · Dawn Sturgess Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  I, too, welcome the Minister’s statement, and indeed the additional sanctions that he announced. It is absolutely right that we do everything we can to resist Russia’s attacks on our security and its attempts to suborn our democracy, and I wholeheartedly agree with him. It is obviously right that the traitorous former MEP that the Minister mentioned is now in prison. I speak as the Member representing Amesbury, the town that Dawn Sturgess was in when she took the fatal poison, but it was represented at the time by my constituency neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen). I want to acknowledge his leadership throughout these difficult years for Salisbury and Amesbury. It appears from the report that the NHS did a good job in its immediate response to the medical emergency that Dawn suffered, but it is also apparent that, when it comes to the wider system of support for the community in Salisbury and Amesbury, the response was somewhat messy—perhaps for perfectly understandable reasons. Can the Minister assure the House that the Government are looking generally at our public safety response in the event of such crises, and can he say what more can be done to ensure that in any future event local communities are properly supported?

• 4 Dec 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure the Leader of the House shares my concern at the recent abduction of over 300 children and teachers from St Mary’s Catholic school in central Nigeria. This is part of a pattern of Islamist persecution of Christians in Nigeria and, indeed, around the world. Does he agree that this pattern exists, and will he agree to a debate in Government time so that the House can address it?

• 27 Nov 2025 · National Church Governance Measure · Hansard source

  More

  That was a very helpful answer, and I am grateful to the Leader of the House for it. The fact is, however, that the proposed new governance Measure that the Church is bringing forward substantially alters the charitable objects of the Church Commissioners, which is a body set up by this House to regulate the income of the Church. As he has explained, the Charity Commission differs with the Church Commissioners and the Church hierarchy on the proposed new body. My question is: to what extent does the Second Church Estates Commissioner regard it as necessary to secure the approval of the Charity Commission when Parliament is establishing a body that will have the power to alter its own constitution? A very substantial change is being introduced, and I want to know whether the Charity Commission has approved that, and whether the Church Commissioners think that it should approve that.

• 27 Nov 2025 · National Church Governance Measure · Hansard source

  More

  2. What guidance the Church Commissioners have received from the Charity Commission on changes proposed under the draft National Church Governance Measure.

• 17 Nov 2025 · Asylum Policy · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the rhetoric in the Home Secretary’s announcement. In fact, I recognise her rhetoric. We have our plan for restoring justice, and she has announced a plan to restore order and control. However, before she puts in her application to join Reform UK—and I would very much welcome her doing so—may I just draw out the difference between our parties? Unlike the Government, we do not propose to give illegal immigrants the right to stay here for two and a half years after arriving; we do not propose to give them the right to study and work here; we do not propose to allow them to bring their families here; and, crucially, we are not going to contort our law to comply with and fit into the European convention on human rights. The derogations announced by the Home Secretary will not work to stop the lawfare, just as the derogations announced in the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 would not have stopped the lawfare, which is why I opposed that Bill as well. She talks about—

• 11 Nov 2025 · Remembrance Day: Armed Forces · Hansard source

  More

  It has been a great pleasure to listen to the very powerful tributes paid by Members to their constituents and their constituencies. Nobody can boast as much about the British Army as the Member for East Wiltshire, which is me, because I represent the super-garrison of Tidworth, Bulford and Larkhill. I claim the largest number of serving men and women and their families of any constituency in the country, and I am enormously proud to represent them, as I was to stand with many of them at the Tidworth memorial on Sunday. However, morale among our veterans is not high. The Minister for the Armed Forces made a very powerful statement earlier when he talked about the intensity of the memories held by service people who remember fatal conflict, and about the trauma they retain. I hope that he also recognises how many serving and former service personnel bear the terrible and ineradicable memory of another event, which is the knock on the door from the military police. So many will have to endure that memory forever because of decisions made by successive Governments. As the Minister will know, there are stories of former special forces servicemen being arrested in front of their family at dawn, handcuffed and put in the back of a police van. These very unfortunate events have happened because Governments have allowed the courts to apply a wide interpretation of the European convention on human rights that goes far beyond the measures that have traditionally bound our military in armed conflict, such as the Geneva convention, the Armed Forces Acts, and British military law. The previous Government made, I think, a very noble effort, particularly in the case of Northern Ireland, to curtail the persecution and prosecution of our troops through the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. Essentially, it recognised that, because of the decisions that followed the Good Friday agreement, it was impossible to achieve justice for the victims of republican terrorism, so an attempt was made through that Act to achieve some balance. I think more could have been done, but it was better than the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, which is being brought before the House next week. The merry-go-round of prosecutions is starting again. Members have powerfully made the case that this is not just about the injustice being perpetrated against our forces; it is about the defence of our country. This Bill will harm the defence of the United Kingdom, because it will directly disincentivise young people from joining up and serving in our armed forces. I implore the Minister, as a brave veteran himself, to put his former comrades ahead of the European convention on human rights, and I hope that he will consider it his duty not to support the Bill next week.

• 3 Nov 2025 · “Soldier F” Trial Verdict · Hansard source

  More

  Can the Secretary of State tell the House how it is compatible with the sovereignty of the United Kingdom to give the Irish Government an official role—effectively, a veto—over the new framework that the Government propose? Is he confident that the Irish state itself will do everything it can to ensure that its agents are held to account for any collusion that may have happened in atrocities carried out by Irish nationalists during the troubles?

• 20 Oct 2025 · Maccabi Tel Aviv FC: Away Fans Ban · Hansard source

  More

  What has happened is that a political campaign—led, I am ashamed to say, by Members of this House—has caused the police to change their decision and calculation. The Secretary of State is right to suggest that this is not simply an operational decision. She is talking a good game, but she also says that all she can do is question the conclusion of the police, and now she is offering more resources and asking them politely if they will change their decision. Do the Government not recognise that, under the Police Act 1996, they have the power to direct police forces to make certain decisions and, if necessary, to dismiss the chief constable? If they do not, will the Government clarify the law to ensure that they do have the power to overturn decisions like this?

• 20 Oct 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I speak in support of new clause 1, which would ensure that this House had a vote before any money was paid to the Government of Mauritius under the treaty. I support the new clause because it demonstrates the important principle of this House asserting its rightful role as the guardian of both public money and British sovereignty. The privileges of this House have been serially insulted in the debates we have had today, which I want to mention quickly. With this new treaty we see the height of what we saw earlier: a dereliction of the responsibilities of this House and the Government. Earlier, in the urgent question on the China spy case, we heard that politicians should not be consulted—

• 20 Oct 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  indicated assent .

• 20 Oct 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I understand, Madam Chairman, and of course you are quite right. The point I was making is that there has never been a Government who are so reluctant to govern as the one we have today. We have heard from hon. Members how baffling the decision is to surrender the Chagos islands. The only rational reason that could account for it is some kind of secret deal with China. I do not know if that is the case. The Government’s obeisance to international law might well trump national sovereignty, and in fact there is no rational calculation behind this decision except that of submission to their ideas of international law.

• 20 Oct 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The key demand that this House is making is for greater transparency about what is going on behind the scenes with this deal. I implore the House to insist that, before Parliament accepts any new arrangements for the sovereignty of the Chagos islands, Ministers explain what is going on. Specifically, is the Minister aware of any effect on our nuclear posture? Is there any relationship between the deal that is being done today and implications for our deterrent? The base is vital to our national interest, and I would be grateful to understand whether any discussions have been had with reference to the deals that were done many years ago about the relationship with the nuclear deterrent.

• 20 Oct 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Minister. I suspect there has been a private conversation with the American Government as well, and that in recognition of the fait accompli that this Government have yielded to Mauritius, the Americans have extended this somewhat limited statement of support for the deal as some kind of favour to the Prime Minister, in exchange for support he has given them on other matters. The fact is that this deal is bad for Britain and bad for Britain’s sovereignty, and behind the scenes we know that the Americans do not support it. I want to talk about secret deals, because my only addition to the debate—very powerful points have been made already—is to say that secret deals have been done with respect to the Chagos islands in the past. Under the 30-year rule, archival evidence has come out recently of a secret deal with respect to the base at Diego Garcia between the British Government of the day—the Thatcher Government—and the American Administration. That deal was done in the national interest. The renewal of the nuclear deterrent—the Trident programme—was being set up, and there was an agreement with the Americans whereby they could expand their access and the use of Diego Garcia in exchange for a reduction in the fee, essentially, that the British Government were charged for collaboration on the Trident programme. We had to pay significantly less than we would have paid otherwise because of the expanded access that we were giving to the Americans in those years. It was called the Diego-Trident package in the negotiations and the correspondence between the British and the Americans at that time. It was kept quiet for understandable reasons, and we only know about it now. I worry that there is a similar lack of transparency around this deal because, as I say, it cannot possibly be a deal that is in the national interest.

• 15 Oct 2025 · Knife Crime · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with every single word the hon. Lady said, except the implication—actually, I will just leave it in agreement. I respect what has happened in Scotland, and I welcome the reductions they have seen there, but my concern about the public health model is that it might mean we have an excuse not to think about the essential moral challenge of individuals understanding the difference between right and wrong, and the role of stable families in preventing crime. We would then have abused the valuable concept of a public health model.

• 15 Oct 2025 · Knife Crime · Hansard source

  More

  We had a little dispute earlier about the statistics on knife crime. The fact is that we clearly do see from the evidence that knife crime is a serious problem, and it is rising in pockets. We have a clear problem in London. The stats are disputed, but the fact is that any knife crime is unacceptable, and the crimes that lead to death are utter tragedies.

• 15 Oct 2025 · Knife Crime · Hansard source

  More

  I am sorry, but I do not think we should spend the whole time disputing the statistics. I can cite statistics suggesting there has been a 60% increase in knife crime in the last year. Let us not trade stats, but by all means let us take this offline, if the hon. Lady would like to trade citations. The fact is that significant studies demonstrate there is a real problem—an increasing problem—with knife crime in some areas. As I said, any knife crime is unacceptable, and the tragedies that lead to death are to be enormously regretted. For the last 20 years, I have run a charity working with people in prisons and with ex-offenders—many of them involved in knife crime and violence—to try to reduce reoffending in London. I know from first-hand experience, and indeed from encounters I have had this week, how much our justice system is disrespected in our communities. So I absolutely agree with the central point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson): we need to increase the deterrent effect of the justice system, and that means having clearer and sterner punishments for the crime of carrying weapons. We need swifter justice, to ensure that the time between the committal of an offence and punishment is as short as possible. We also need—this is the work I do—to focus on rehabilitation and reducing reoffending, because the cycle of crime is the cause, the real heart, of these terrible statistics. It is not the number of first-time offenders, which is always terrible; it is the number of people who stay in a life of crime. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield for referencing the families of the victims. Ultimately, those are the people we should bear in mind when we consider these tragedies. But I also pay tribute to him for mentioning the families of the attackers, whose lives are also ruined when their son—it is usually the son—goes to jail for many years as a consequence of knife crime. As my hon. Friend said, they suffer shame and trauma. I want to mention family—this is really my only real contribution to the debate—because I do not think we have heard the word “family” mentioned yet, and it is rare that we do. All my experience of working with offenders is that in almost every case—it is almost absurd how standard it is—the father is absent from the young man’s life; it is not always the case, and of course there are exceptions. I therefore pay tribute to the amazing women who try to bring these boys up in very tough circumstances and who overwhelmingly do their best to ensure that their boys stay on the straight and narrow. But in the absence of a father, how are those boys to understand what it is to be a man, to respect authority, to respect women and to collaborate constructively with their peers? Those lessons are so much harder to learn for boys growing up without a positive male role model in their lives. I want to make a simple point in response to a remark the hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) made earlier about the public health approach to crime. I respect that concept; if we are talking about knife crime as an epidemic comparable to a contagious disease, that is a very apt analogy. I also respect the principle that we should have a whole-community approach to knife crime. My concern is that the concept of a public health approach is really code for a statutory response that says that the reason we have knife crime is that the wider community—which really means what the Government are doing—is inadequate and needs to step forward in some way. As I said, a lot of my life has been committed to the principle that community needs to step forward. However, the role of the state is fundamentally to enforce justice; the job of the Government is to ensure that people are safe in their streets and that the law is respected. The real source of the knife crime epidemic, and the resolution to it, does not lie with the state, nor with the nebulous community; it lies with the individual themselves, who needs to grow up learning and knowing what it is to do right and wrong, and it lies with the family. If Government can do anything apart from enforce justice—which of course is their primary function —they should be instilling the principles of right and wrong in our young people through the education system. More importantly than anything else, they should be supporting stable families, because that is the context in which young boys will grow up much less likely to go off the rails.

• 15 Oct 2025 · Knife Crime · Hansard source

  More

  I am happy to give way to my constituency neighbour.

• 15 Oct 2025 · Knife Crime · Hansard source

  More

  I agree, although most youth clubs are not statutory institutions—they might be publicly funded but they belong to civil society, and I honour and welcome them. I pay tribute to the youth club that supported the hon. Gentleman, and indeed the armed forces, which I suspect he would also say played an important role in his being the fine, upstanding citizen that he is today. Nevertheless, we will never compensate for the epidemic of family breakdown in this country with youth clubs. Youth clubs are vital, the armed forces are vital and all the other institutions of society that come around individuals play an essential role, but if the family is broken in our communities, we will continue to have the tragedies that we have been discussing today.

• 14 Oct 2025 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  This ceasefire is tremendous news, and I sincerely congratulate everybody who was involved in bringing it about, whoever they were, including the British Government. I was in Israel last week, and on the day that the ceasefire was announced, I visited the Nova festival site and spoke to civilians and soldiers on the Gaza border. The Israelis I spoke to were deeply dismayed that the British Government had decided to recognise the state of Palestine before Hamas had released their hostages, let alone disarmed. Does the Prime Minister understand why Israel cannot tolerate the idea of a state on its border that poses a security risk to its citizens, and will he undertake not to move forward to support the establishment of a Palestinian state until there is more than a promise—there is actually the reality of security for Israel?

• 2 Sept 2025 · Eating Disorders: Prevention of Deaths · Hansard source

  More

  I will be quick, in that case. I express my appreciation to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) for a very important speech; I am grateful to him. I particularly welcome the points made by him and the hon. Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) about the need for better understanding and collaboration in the system, and I echo his call for the national register of deaths to reflect deaths from eating disorders. I pay tribute to the Cotswold House unit, run by the Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust in Marlborough in my constituency, which is a really important in-patient and out-patient unit working with adults. I echo the points, which I think are shared across the Chamber, about the value of NHS units as opposed to operations run by private equity companies, whose work I have real concerns about. I want to add a couple of points to those made by hon. Members about the very legitimate campaigns of the organisations to which we are all indebted for their work. First, the point about early intervention has been made and I will not repeat it, but we clearly need to invest in more understanding both at GP level and among communities and families, and support people while they are still at home. Secondly, we must ensure we have a better and more adequate transition from children’s to adult services, which is a real issue I have come across in casework. My final point is about the importance of step-down provision. It is not enough just to get people back to a healthy weight and then leave them to themselves; they need proper support for many months—

• 1 Sept 2025 · Health and Disability Benefits: Spending Estimate · Hansard source

  More

  It is good to see the Minister back after the break, but I am sorry to hear that there are still no plans to reduce spending on personal independence payments. He has said that he is collaborating with people who would not be working with him on his review if there were to be any reductions in the levels of benefit or eligibility. Given that veto on cuts to PIP, I implore him again to consider the benefits to which PIP is a gateway, such as Motability, disability premiums, council tax discounts and blue badges. Will he promise at least that those entitlements could come down?

• 1 Sept 2025 · Health and Disability Benefits: Spending Estimate · Hansard source

  More

  But with no possibility of any of those entitlements coming down or any of the spending being reduced? We have 1.25 million foreign nationals claiming universal credit, most of whom are not in employment. I hope that the Minister does not plan to co-produce his plans with foreign nationals—although, knowing Labour lawyers, I expect they will say that the European convention on human rights demands that they do just that. Does he think that subsidising more and more foreign nationals is what the British social security system is for? If not, will he restrict sickness benefits to British nationals only, as we have argued for?

• 17 Jul 2025 · Future of the Church of England · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that I do agree with him. He makes the point very well, and I absolutely acknowledge it. The paradox of our constitution is that under a monarchy, we have a system with the most developed political freedom in the world, and that under an established Church, we have a tradition of freedom of conscience and belief in which all religions can be accommodated. It is because the cross is at the centre, and I notice that the cross is above your Chair too, Madam Deputy Speaker. As I was saying, in abandoning one religion we simply create a space for others to move into as the dominant faiths. There are two religions moving into the space from which Christianity has been ejected, and one is Islam. In a debate yesterday, I said how much I find myself in agreement with Muslim colleagues in Parliament on moral and social matters. But as I have been saying, this is a Christian country—if it is a country at all—and I cannot be indifferent to the extent of the growth of Islam in recent decades. It is the other religion that worries me even more. This other religion is a hybrid of old and new ideas, and it does not have a proper name. I do not think that “woke” does justice to its seriousness. It is a combination of ancient paganism, Christian heresies and the cult of modernism, all mashed up into a deeply mistaken and deeply dangerous ideology of power that is hostile to the essential objects of our affections and our loyalties: families, communities and nations. It is explicitly and most passionately hostile to Christianity as the wellspring of the west. That religion, unlike Islam, must simply be destroyed, at least as a public doctrine. It must be banished from public life—from schools and universities, and from businesses and public services. It needs to be sent back to the fringes of eccentricity, like the modern druids who invest Stonehenge in my constituency with a theology that is seen as mad but harmless because its followers are so few and no one serious takes them seriously. We can no longer pretend, as people did in the 20th century, that we can be neutral or indifferent to God or to the public square being a godless desert. The fact is that the strong gods are back, and we have to choose which god to worship. I suggest we worship the God who came in the weakest form, Jesus Christ. This God is a jealous god—it is him or nothing—and we have to own our Christian story, or repudiate it. Not to own it is to repudiate it, and to repudiate Christianity is not only to sever ourselves from our past, but to cut off the source of all the things we value now and that we need in the future, such as freedom, tolerance, individual dignity and human rights. Without the Christian God, in whose teaching these things have their source, these are inventions—mere non-existent aspirations. To worship human rights is to worship fairies, but if we own our story and remember the real sources of our civilisation, we can have these things and make them real—real freedom and tolerance and dignity, a culture of love and, crucially, a culture of humanity. We are in the age of the machine, and a great choice confronts us: whether to make machines in the image of fallen man, bent on exploitation and domination with mankind in its sights, or to make them what they properly are, the servants of mankind able to help us make a better world. To conclude, a wind is blowing, a storm is coming and when it hits we are going to learn if our house is built on rock or on sand, but we have been here before. The reformers of the 11th and the 16th centuries, the Puritans in the 17th century, the Evangelicals in the 19th century all brought this country back from the edge—from idolatry, error or just plain indifference, and from all the social and political crises that indifference to Christianity brought about—and they each in their generation restored this country to itself. A new restoration is needed now, with a revival of the faith, a recovery of a Christian politics and a re-founding of this nation on the teachings that Alfred made the basis of the common law of England all those centuries ago. This is a mission for the Church under its next leader, whoever that is; it is a mission for this place—the old chapel that became the wellspring of western democracy—and for us, its Members; and it is a mission for our whole country. It is the route to a prosperous modernity founded on respect for human dignity, responsibility for the created world and the worship of God.

• 17 Jul 2025 · Future of the Church of England · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to stand here in this empty Chamber to speak about the original purpose of this space, when it was a chapel in the Church of England. The old Chamber of the House of Commons, on which this space was modelled after the great fire of 1834, was St Stephen’s Chapel—formerly a royal church. It was given by the heirs of Henry VIII to Parliament to serve as its debating Chamber. Madam Deputy Speaker, your Chair stands on the altar steps. The Table with the Dispatch Boxes is where the lectern stood. I mention that because the link between this place and the Church of England is not merely ceremonial. The Prayers we say here at the start of every day are not just a nod to tradition. Our democracy is founded on Christian faith. This Parliament remains the law-giving power of the Church of England. We in this place have the responsibility to approve or disapprove the doctrine and the rules of the Church, and that is as it should be, because the Church of England is not some private club or just another eccentric denomination. The Church is a chaplain to the nation, and through the parish system, in which every square inch of England has its local church and its local priest, we are all members—we all belong. Even if you never set foot in your church from one year to the next, and even if you do not believe in its teachings, it is your church and you are its member. When I speak of the Church of England today, I am not speaking about the internal politics of the Anglican sect; I speak of the common creed of our country, the official religion of the English and the British nation, and the institution—older than the monarchy, and much older than Parliament—which made this country. It is no surprise that both the Church and the country itself are in a bad way, divided, internally confused and badly led. The Church is riven by deep disputes over doctrine and governance, and is literally leaderless, with even the process of choosing the next Archbishop of Canterbury unclear, confused and contended. The country itself reflects that—unclear in its doctrines and its governance, profoundly precarious, chronically exposed to threats from without and within. It is at risk economically, culturally, socially and, I would say, morally. Last month, in the space of three days in one infamous week, this House authorised the killing of unborn children—of nine-month-old babies—and it passed a Bill to allow the killing of the elderly and disabled. I describe those laws in those stark terms not to provoke further controversy, but because those are the facts. We gave our consent to the greatest crime: the killing of the weak and most defenceless human beings. It was a great sin. If, standing here, I have any power to repent on behalf of this House, I hereby repent of what we did. In the reaction to these votes, and all around us in reaction to the state of the country and the world, something else is happening. There is a great hunger in society for a better way of living, and I want to use this opportunity to explain what that better way is and why we here in England have the means to follow it. The Jewish and Christian God is a God of nations. He is interested in people as individuals, but also as groups—as communities not only of kinship but of common worship, with a common God. Uniquely among the nations of the world, this nation—England, from which the United Kingdom grew—was founded and created consciously on the basis of the Bible and the story of the Hebrew people. In that sense, England is the oldest Christian country and the prototype of nations across the west. The story of England is the story of Christianity operating on a people to make the institutions and culture that have been uniquely stable and successful. The western model was forged and refined in England over a thousand years from the 9th to the 19th centuries. What is that model? It is simply this: that power should arrange itself for the benefit of all the people under it, and specifically for the poorest and weakest; that the law is there to protect the ordinary person against the abuse of power; and that every individual has equal dignity and freedom, including, crucially, the freedom of conscience, religion and belief, which makes space for other religions under the Christian shield—a secular space. Indeed, the idea of a secular space is a Christian concept that is meaningful only in a Christian world. These are ideas that only make sense if one accepts that we have some intrinsic value—a value that is given to us and is not of our own making or invention. Throughout the long years from the time of Alfred to the time of Victoria, it was assumed that a nation was a community of common worship and that our community —this country—worshipped the Christian God. Then, in the 20th century, another idea arose: that it was possible for a country to be neutral about God; that the public square was empty of any metaphysics; and that the route to freedom lay through the desert of materialism and individual reason—“no hell below us, above us only sky”. That idea was wrong. The horrors of the 20th century attest to that, not least in the west, where we escaped totalitarianism but have suffered our own catastrophes of social breakdown, social injustice, loneliness and emptiness on a chronic scale. Ugly and aggressive new threats are now arising, because we have found that in the absence of the Christian God, we do not have pluralism and tolerance, with everyone being nice to each other in a godless world. All politics is religious, and in abandoning one religion we simply create a space for others to move into.

• 16 Jul 2025 · Giving Every Child the Best Start in Life · Hansard source

  More

  It is funny: I often find myself in agreement with the hon. Gentleman, which is great, and not what I expected when he was elected to this place. I was about to come to my final point: the importance of family life. I do not know to what extent that really is on the Government’s agenda when it comes to the child poverty strategy. There will obviously be lots of talk of families, maternal health and so on, but the crucial determinant of success for children is the quality of the relationships they grow up in. We know that from all the research done into children’s brain development. Human beings are unique among mammals in that we emerge very unformed: our brains are really blank as we emerge from the womb. The strength and health of our brains and our futures are laid down in those early years by the quality of the relationships we grow up with and experience. I know the Government recognise that because of their emphasis on early years, but the quality of the relationship in the home matters so much. I really hope that the Government will be brave enough to recognise the value of stability in the home and the value of two-parent families as a source of real strength. They are a protective factor and a predictor of success for children and young people. We should, of course, do all we can to support single-parent families—they are crucial and necessary and do amazing work, and we should give them all our support—but to tackle child poverty we must do more to support family formation and family stability. That means recognising the household as a unit. We are way too individualistic in our approach to public policy. We need to think about family health and family strength, and that means supporting couples. I welcome what the Government are trying to do, and I hope that there will be recognition of the importance of community and family life in the child poverty strategy.