Danny Kruger MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

  I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. It is absolutely right that we have this debate. I am citing evidence provided by Democracy Volunteers, the independent observers who were present in the polling stations last week. It is important that we look into it. It is obviously impossible to tell definitively at this stage exactly what went on, but it is clear from these independent observers that serious abuse seems to have been practised.

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

  More

  That is exactly what I think, and every British citizen should be able—

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

  More

  We already prevent young people at that age from driving, from buying cigarettes and alcohol, and from standing for Parliament. We already conclude that they are not responsible enough in general. Obviously, many are far more responsible than adults, but the conclusion is that they are still children and that they should not be exercising this vital responsibility in respect of our whole democracy until they are 18. I will quickly mention the Rycroft review. May I stress on behalf of the Reform party how much I welcome the review? Many hon. Members rightly mentioned the disgraceful episode of a former Reform MEP taking bribes from a foreign state. It is absolutely right that we look closely into the circumstances that allowed that to arise. We will wait and see what the review comes up with, but it is quite right that we take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that we do not have foreign financial interference in our democracy.

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

  More

  Let me start by expressing my commiseration with my former hon. Friend—he is still my friend—the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), who was inadvertently confused with somebody who might want to join the Reform party. It is difficult to imagine a Member less likely to want to do that, or indeed to be received by the Reform party, than him—I am sure he is happy to hear that. That is perhaps except for the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly)—but he once had his own problems with counting votes in a Conservative party election. I am not going to address the absurd suggestion of votes at 16 as that has been well dealt with by other hon. Members. In particular, there is the obvious point suggested by hon. Members that because young people can sign up to join the Army when they are 16, they should be able to vote. The fact is, they can join the Army not to go and fight, but only as a cadet, and only with parental consent. To anybody suggesting that that somehow means that they should be able to vote, I invite them to suggest whether they think their parents should also be giving consent on how they vote in the voting booth. I think not. I will however come to family voting in a moment.

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

  More

  I should have started by congratulating the new hon. Member on her personal victory. I am, however, very concerned about the circumstances in which many of those votes were cast. I am not plucking this concern out of the air; it is clearly apparent that there is widespread concern, and this is not the first time that it has happened.

• 23 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  I wish I had started counting at the beginning of this statement how often the Chief Secretary used the word “process”. The word that I have been listening out for and have not heard him say is “responsibility”. Does he accept that it is the job of the Prime Minister to make all these appointments without reference to backroom bureaucrats and lawyers? Should he not accept that he made a terrible mistake in respect of Peter Mandelson, do the right thing and reveal all the papers immediately?

• 23 Feb 2026 · Labour Together and APCO Worldwide: Cabinet Office Review · Hansard source

  More

  The Government are hiding behind process as usual, even when the process is so clearly compromised, as in this case. First, we hear that the propriety and ethics team are looking at this matter even though we know that the leader of that team is a former Labour Together staffer who was appointed according to inappropriate process. I would be grateful if the Minister repeated and perhaps explained the extraordinary claim he made earlier from the Dispatch Box that it is necessary for the Minister in question to stay in his role so that the independent inquiry can be carried out. It is an absolutely extraordinary suggestion—could he explain it? Secondly, could he simply confirm to the House that it is for the Prime Minister to appoint and dismiss Ministers without reference to independent inquiries, and that he is perfectly capable of making the right decision now?

• 2 Feb 2026 · China and Japan · Hansard source

  More

  The Prime Minister is very full of the abstract virtue of engaging with China and getting in the room with them. He used to say that Britain should not even sign a trade deal with China because of the persecution of the Uyghur people. Having now got into the room with the Chinese leader, can he tell the House a single thing that he achieved on behalf of the Uyghurs, or indeed on behalf of the security of this country?

• 19 Jan 2026 · Arctic Security · Hansard source

  More

  The Foreign Secretary is, of course, absolutely right to insist that the future of Greenland is a question only for the people of Greenland, but does she acknowledge that this crisis is the consequence of our weakness—of decades of failure on the part of Europe and the UK to invest in defence, and, indeed, of a historic failure of statecraft on the part of the United Kingdom? One naval officer went to Greenland, and as a consequence, 10% tariffs are to be imposed on us. The Foreign Secretary mentioned a conversation that she had in Scandinavia last week. Did she offer to do more than simply co-operate with our partners and neighbours, and to actually lead in the defence of Greenland by committing a proper joint expeditionary force, led by the UK, with a proper commitment to ensuring the safety of Greenland?

• 13 Jan 2026 · Nigeria: Freedom of Religion or Belief · Hansard source

  More

  I, too, think it is a very good thing that the hon. Gentleman has taken this role. He mentions the impact of this issue around the world. He is absolutely right to say that what is going in Nigeria is the worst example, but it represents a pattern of Islamist persecution of Christians. It is not just a series of individual atrocities; there is a global pattern of Islamist persecution of Christians. It is right that we in this House acknowledge that. Does he agree?

• 7 Jan 2026 · UK Town of Culture · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to listen to these wonderful encomia for our towns, and I am going to add my voice on behalf of Wiltshire, and particularly Amesbury. I would be delighted if Marlborough, the other big town in my constituency, were to win the competition, but I want to speak particularly for Amesbury. I was struck by the hon. Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger), who made a very good speech on behalf of his constituency, boasting about its important link with the history of heavy metal. Anyone who has seen the film “This Is Spinal Tap” will know that in fact it is Stonehenge that is the genuine heart of the history of heavy metal. On that ground, if nothing else, surely Amesbury should win, because it is the town of Stonehenge. I will return to that point in a moment. The hon. Gentleman for Redditch (Chris Bloore) intervened to suggest that the award should be about the future. I disagree. Surely it should be about the history of our places. There is no place in these islands with a longer, and therefore greater, history than Amesbury, because it is the oldest continually inhabited settlement in the British Isles. People were living there a very, very long time ago, in 8820 BC. In fact, the grave of what we now call the Amesbury archer—a man buried with a bow and arrow and various other valuable artefacts—was discovered in Amesbury some time ago. DNA testing has demonstrated that he came to Amesbury from the Swiss alps many centuries ago, in the days when this country was still connected to Europe by a land bridge. Those who believe we should rejoin our continental neighbours under some sort of terrible political union might be inspired to think of Amesbury as a place where that was demonstrated millennia ago. Thousands of years after the original settlement, Stonehenge was built, and it stands as the greatest monument to a now forgotten civilisation—the heart of England from which so much derived. The great world heritage site that is the central district of Wiltshire is to be found in Amesbury. It is the site of Romans, Saxons and the myths of King Arthur, whose wife Guinevere is apparently buried in Amesbury—who can tell? We do know that King Alfred left the manor of Amesbury to his son. A little later, in the pre-Norman era, the first church was built there, and its remains are still there. Subsequently, and significantly, the remains of the only monarch of England whose whereabouts are not precisely known are believed to be somewhere in Amesbury. Queen Eleanor of Provence, the wife of Henry III, died somewhere in the area in 1291. We are hopeful that in the coming years we will discover her actual burial place and have a fitting memorial. Having made the point about Amesbury’s past, I want to conclude by saying that it is a very vibrant, genuinely warm community that is rich in existing possibility and, indeed, in prosperity. It is part of the world heritage site, although sadly bisected from Stonehenge itself by the A303. We had been led to believe there was going to be a significant investment in tunnelling that road, which would have connected the town more closely to the site, but that is now not happening. Nevertheless, there is an enormous opportunity, and it is really important for Wiltshire that the town that hosts the museum for Stonehenge and is, as I say, the source of such amazing heritage should be able to benefit from the millions of tourists who come through every year. I hope that, through the town of culture award, we can recognise the importance of Amesbury locally, nationally and internationally.

• 5 Jan 2026 · Venezuela · Hansard source

  More

  The Biden Administration offered a $25 million reward for the capture and detention of President Maduro, and this country has passively supported regime change in Venezuela since we froze the gold reserves held at the Bank of England in 2019. Now that President Trump has followed through on the implicit policy of both our countries and achieved the outcome that the whole world wanted, can the Foreign Secretary tell the House what conditions will need to be met for the money that is owned by the Venezuelan people to be returned by the Bank of England?

• 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.