Danny Kruger
MP for East Wiltshire · Reform UK · United Kingdom
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
The complete record
Every one of 600 lines we hold for Danny Kruger, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 12.
“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?”
“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?”
“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?”
“With this new money, the defence budget is due to rise by about £17 billion a year over the next four years. In that same period, the welfare budget is going to rise by about £60 billion. That is almost the whole defence budget just in the increase in welfare spending. General Barrons, who co-authored the Government’s strategic defence review, said in response to today’s announcement that “we’re not keeping up with our allies” or “with our enemies”. Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that the Government have failed to fund the strategic defence review and left us dangerously exposed, particularly at sea? The Secretary of State talks about spending wisely. How much of the money that the Government have announced they will be spending will go to SMEs and not to the big primes that have delivered us programmes like Ajax?”
“Some 10 years on from the Brexit referendum, the Government want to align more closely with the European Union, but does the Deputy Prime Minister recognise as a statement of fact that in the sectors from which the growth of the future is coming—life sciences, agritech, defence tech and, most of all, artificial intelligence—the UK far outstrips the EU, and it would not do so if we had spent the past five years in the EU’s regulation regime. Whenever the EU summit happens, does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that we need to maintain absolute sovereignty and regulatory divergence in those vital areas?”
“I will turn now to the amendments tabled by other Members and parties that we support. It is important that the budget for the new housing organisation is properly reflected in the defence investment plan, when it comes out. I would also very much like a commitment from the Government that we will see in due course the effect of this long, unacceptable and unaccountable delay to the defence investment plan. What effect will the delay have on our procurement and military readiness?”
“I think I represent more forces families and veterans than any other MP; the area that I represent covers part of Salisbury plain, Tidworth, Bulford and Larkhill, and despite what it says outside Aldershot, we are the true home of the British Army—I hope that the hon. Member for Aldershot (Alex Baker) will allow me to make that claim—and I am very keen to ensure that our forces and their families are properly accommodated. I recognise the point made by the hon. Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor that what really matters is the leadership of housing organisations. However, I want to express my concern about a measure that will create a new quango responsible for forces families. I instead support the official Opposition proposal that we create a dedicated housing association for that purpose.”
“It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland). I start by stating, on behalf of my party, our support for this Bill and its important provisions, not simply because it extends the legal basis of our armed forces, but because of the very important new provisions that it introduces. We very much support the extension, which the hon. Gentleman just mentioned, of the armed forces covenant to more policy areas. We also support the expansion of recall for reservists; it would be good if we could actually recruit more reservists, full stop, but it is very welcome that we will be able to recall more of them. Most of all, I support the principle of better housing for veterans and forces families.”
“I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning the SDR, because I was about to do so myself. It is not a strategy. For starters, it is a defence review. The point I was just making is that the strategy we need is upstream of defence. We need a proper national security strategy that considers, in the round, all the different levers of national power and places defence in its proper place in the hierarchy, which is downstream of the crucial strategic questions about the role that the United Kingdom will play in the world. The SDR was published over a year ago; we have seen none of its recommendations implemented, and the money that is required for it still has not been delivered.”
“My point is that arguing loudly for a bigger armed forces, praising our troops, as we all do, or speaking up for our allies, as we should, are not a strategy. Publishing a strategic defence review or even a defence investment plan do not count either.”
“The word “strategy” can be put on all sorts of things. I am talking about what a strategy actually is. It is a plan of action that proceeds from an objective and a doctrine about how to achieve that objective. That is what we lack as a country. We have not done grand strategy in this country for decades.”
“The reason for setting out this objective to be a great power is not just for national pride or self-esteem but for a simple reason: a country that is not a great power is subject to those that are. Sovereignty and capability are vital in the age of tech, a high demand for energy, rare earths and high-tech skills. That is what a country needs in this age. What does great power status look like? I do not want to join the EU. I think that would be a disaster economically and pointless from a security perspective.”
“It is: what are we trying to do as a country? I want to finish by suggesting a strategy. It might sound bold and simplistic, but it is only bold because we are so weak and diminished as a country. Our strategy should be to rejoin—not the EU—the club of great powers. Currently, the great powers are the United States and China, of course, but also Russia, India and Japan. Those are the countries that recognise each other in those terms. They are great powers not because they are good—very obviously China and Russia are very bad—but because they make the weather in the world, and Britain does not, despite our country’s most incredible assets, opportunities and strengths.”
“I am conscious that the hon. Gentleman is an academic in this space. The point that I am making is that we need an overall vision for our country, a doctrine of how to achieve it and then a set of actions—working together, which I understand to be a strategy, how we deploy different assets, the different policies we have, and the different means to the ends that we have identified in pursuit of our overall objective. I do not think that any of us in this House can accurately define what that is for our country, and that is a source of great regret. I applaud everything that the Government are trying to do to improve conditions for our armed forces. It would be great if the money were to be forthcoming as well, but there is something bigger and more profound than the questions about specific posture, kit or even deployments.”
“I will not. Instead, I would like the United Kingdom to lead European defence by leading a partnership of other countries that have a capable military—most obviously France, Germany, Poland and the Baltics—to defend the Euro-Atlantic from Russia, China and Iran. That is the best role we can play in partnership with our friends in the United States.”
“I absolutely do not believe that we should form a European army, and we certainly should not join any sort of chain of command organised within the EU, but we can act with European partners, as we currently do—most obviously with the northern states in the joint expeditionary force, but also with our other allies in Europe, such as Italy, France, Poland and Germany. We should do that on the basis of a genuine, bespoke partnership for the purpose of defending Europe, particularly the Euro-Atlantic seaboard, where the United Kingdom has a special responsibility. My position is that we should preserve our national sovereignty, capability and independence, but that we can do that in partnership with other countries, in defence of our common interests. That feels to me to be completely consistent with national sovereignty.”
“More than anything, that means economic reform, liberating the inventors and entrepreneurs, particularly in the exciting new fields of defence tech. It means freeing up private capital that will ultimately fund our defence in addition to anything that the Government can find. It means driving forward on AI, which is the new, great frontline for everything. It also means securing the supply of energy, licensing new oil and gas exploration, and radically reforming our planning system. None of that is being done by the Government. That is why, although I absolutely support the objectives of the Bill—we will vote for it tonight if it goes to a Division—I still fear for our security as a country.”
“The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I am taking the opportunity of a defence debate to make the point that defence is downstream of grand strategy, and that is what is fundamentally lacking. Our defences are not going to be as strong as they could be, because they are not necessarily oriented towards the fundamental objectives that we need, which I am trying to set out in very broad terms. I am not suggesting that we need to create new structures and new alliances with new institutions—we can work within the ones that we have—but the purpose of the United Kingdom’s security strategy, and the fundamental objective we should have as a country, is to lead the defence of Europe with our partners, particularly the Euro-Atlantic seaboard. Let me conclude with this point. To lead the alliance that I suggest, we need real strength at home.”
“The defence funding is obviously very late and it will clearly be inadequate as well, but an even greater scandal is surely the fact that the spending itself is so poorly conducted. Our procurement system is slow, wasteful and outdated. The Minister praised them earlier, but does he not accept that the bureaucrats who gave us the Ajax programme cannot command the confidence of the armed forces? Will he acknowledge that the part of the MOD that he oversees is slow and wasteful, procures outdated equipment, and is the most dysfunctional part of the British state?”
“Rioting is utterly wrong, and the scenes we saw in Belfast yesterday deserve our total condemnation, but law-abiding people across the country are rightly furious about the Government’s failure to stop dangerous and violent men entering our country illegally. One reason that they enter is the pull factor of our asylum and welfare system, and another is the open border with the Republic. I stood on that border last week. Nobody wants to see physical infrastructure erected there, but what conversations is the Minister having with the Irish Government to get them to do more to stop illegal migrants travelling north into the UK?”
“I end with a plea to Ministers: I extol and applaud their aspiration for a clean transition, but right now we are in a national emergency, and we need to crowd in every possible source of electricity that we have to get our economy growing. That includes nuclear and it includes fossil fuels.”
“We are driving away the talent that we need for the future. I am enthused by the opportunities that our high-tech sectors represent and what we could be doing, but there is also the ordinary economy. Labour used to talk a lot about that—indeed, some years ago the Chancellor wrote a book called “The Everyday Economy”—and it is a vital focus for us. But what are we doing for businesses that are the backbone of our highstreets—both national businesses and small and medium-sized businesses? We are ramping costs on to them through national insurance contributions and business rates. For small businesses the VAT threshold is way too high, inhibiting growth and job creation. A Government who want growth and productivity are going in directly the opposite direction.”
“I have been meeting a bunch of businesses recently—we are on a bit of a prawn cocktail operation in the Reform party, and it is amazing which businesses want to come and talk to us at the moment. It is very encouraging, but they are all depressed about the state of the economy. Yesterday, an AI entrepreneur said to me, “If we are not careful, this country’s economy will simply be US tourism.” That is all we will be able to offer, because we are driving away all the entrepreneurs and businesses that represent opportunities for growth in future. Last week I was talking to a pharmaceutical firm that is now exiting to Europe—to Switzerland, in fact. This morning I saw a company developing the technology for small modular nuclear reactors. They are giving up and going to the United States.”
“It is scandalous: in all sectors where the United Kingdom has real current and enormous potential advantages, the high-tech sectors of fintech, agri-tech and AI—areas that, thanks to Brexit, we are able to drive ahead on, boldly and independently—we are being hobbled by a lack of ambition and a chronic inability to release the talents and opportunities there. I was going to intervene earlier on the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), who was bewailing the exit of UK tech entrepreneurs in the AI space and saying that we should be more like Europe in that regard. Those entrepreneurs are not leaving the United Kingdom to go to the EU; they are going to the middle east, the United States or the far east, because those countries have a pro-tech industrial policy, and that is what we need in our country.”
“Likewise, in other crucial areas of national priority—defence being the main one—we hear the right language about the need for investment. We hear about the need to recover our defences, which have been sadly depleted over many decades. We have a chronic weakness in our national defences, and yet we still have no defence investment plan and no clarity on where the money will be spent or even where it will come from. I represent a military constituency with many amazing tech and military firms that are developing the kit we need for our defences. They are laying off staff as we speak, because the money is not promised and it is not available to them.”
“Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho). She made an excellent speech about the difficulty of the Government’s policy, and she is now in the right place. Across the board, and particularly on the topic of energy security, we see bold ambition and the right statements being made, particularly about energy independence and resilience, but the detail that follows is utterly underwhelming. In this area, we see a decision not to exploit the enormous opportunities of the reserves we have in the North sea. We should all welcome the aspiration of energy independence, including eventually to reap the huge benefits of the abundant natural resources that we should be using for energy, but I am afraid we are not going to get there this way.”
“It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome), because she made a very important point at the end. She is right: this is a very underwhelming King’s Speech. There are some welcome headlines, but the fact is that the ambition is very diminished. The reason for that—and she represents it—is that the Labour party is fundamentally split. It is unable to move forward boldly in any direction that is needed. I do not make personal accusations. I know what it is like; I sat on the Government Benches in the last Parliament, supporting a Government who were also fatally split and unable to move forward. This is the consequence of the politics that we are in. By the way, I welcome the eloquent and elegant repudiation of her previous position by the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon.”
“This is why we need to restore the Armstrong principle set out by Robert Armstrong in 1985: “The civil service…has no constitutional personality or responsibility separate from the duly elected Government of the day.” —[ Official Report , 26 February 1985; Vol. 74, c. 129W.] Yes, I want to see the back of this Prime Minister, but most of all I want to dismantle the cabal of permanent secretaries who run this country and to restore the proper authority of Parliament.”
“Break those links of accountability, and instead of a hierarchy with the public at the top, ultimately in charge through the ballot box, and civil servants at the bottom—genuinely the servants of the democratically elected masters—we have unaccountable civil servants at the top, Ministers floundering around as this lot are, Parliament is pointless and the public are outraged. What has to change is the great restoration of the principle that the civil service serves the public, and it does that by respecting the ultimate responsibility of Ministers as decision makers. It is absurd to have rules that shield the decision makers from the information they need to make a decision, and no other organisation would do that.”
“Yes, we need process, but the fact is that appointments, like everything else the Government do, are political decisions. Politics is simply the management of the common life of the community, and the management of trade-offs between different ideas and interests. We in this country have developed over many years a model of doing things—of doing politics—that is or was the best in the world: civil servants accountable to Ministers accountable to Parliament accountable to the public.”
“Of course the Prime Minister’s position is untenable, as many Members have said, but it is possible that the Prime Minister’s honesty or position is not the most important thing about this saga. What matters even more is our system of government, for which the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister is partly responsible. If the Prime Minister has been surprised to find that the civil service acts within processes that screen Ministers from information and from the power to make decisions, no one else is surprised about that. I think the Prime Minister has spent so long as a civil servant and then as a politician behaving like a civil servant that, when he finds that the system does not work, he has a sort of professional breakdown and starts spluttering about process and reviews, and reviews of the processes.”
“That is not accountability; that is a stich-up. Worse still, we learned today that, before Sir Olly even took over, due diligence on Mandelson’s appointment had been completed, approval had been given by His Majesty, the appointment had been announced, agrément had been secured from the United States, Mandelson had building and IT access, and he was already receiving highly classified briefings on a case-by-case basis. We have even learned that the Cabinet Office itself raised whether developed vetting was necessary, and the FCDO had to insist on it. So let us drop the pretence that this was some neutral, pristine process derailed by one mandarin misconducting himself. The appointment was politically driven from the top and forced through in an atmosphere of pressure.”
“Obviously, the lack of curiosity on behalf of the Prime Minister was inexplicable and reprehensible. We have seen evasion, obfuscation and blame shifting, as well as blatant contradictions, and I want to point out one that has not yet surfaced this afternoon. The Prime Minister said that he was “astonished”, and that it was “incredible”, that information could have been withheld from him, but it is significant that Sir Olly Robbins’s letter says that the position conveyed to the Foreign Affairs Committee in September 2025—that “Ministers…are not informed of any findings other than the final outcome”— was “agreed with” the Cabinet Office and No. 10. In other words, the Prime Minister is now trying to dump the entire scandal on one official for acting on a position that Downing Street itself had signed off.”
“The Prime Minister came to this House only yesterday saying, “I will now set out the full timeline”, —[ Official Report , 20 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 23.] and later insisting that he had come to “give the full account to the House”. —[ Official Report , 20 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 28.] That followed Downing Street’s acceptance earlier in the day that his previous account had, at the very least, inadvertently misled Members. Yesterday was meant to be the great clean-up—the day of the full facts, full candour and full accountability. Today, Sir Olly Robbins gave evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee and published a letter that blows a hole straight through the Prime Minister’s version of events. Many hon. Members have already exposed that.”
“If Olly Robbins could and should have provided this information to the Prime Minister at the first opportunity, as the Prime Minister has said today, surely the same applies to Cat Little, Antonia Romeo and the Cabinet Office officials who sat on this information for nearly a month before bringing it to the Prime Minister when The Guardian started asking questions of No. 10. Why does he accept that they needed legal advice to do what he is saying should have been obvious? He sacked Olly Robbins for not bringing him that information immediately; why are the others still in post?”
“Why will the Government not recognise that they have a right of abode there, and why are the Government frustrating the very legitimate efforts of philanthropists to support them to re-establish their community?”
“I very much welcome the Government’s withdrawal of the Bill. I have two questions about the future commitment of this country to the Chagossian people and the Chagos islands. First, will the Government commit that if there is to be any future constitutional change to the status of the islands, the Chagossian community here in the UK will be given the chance to express its view through a referendum of that community? My second question relates to the heroic landing by my friend and new fellow Reform member, Adam Holloway, who made the brave journey to Reform, as well as journeying to the Chagos islands with a group of islanders. I remind the Minister that those people were forcibly removed from their homes by a Labour Government in the 1970s. The infrastructure that they left behind is now descending into jungle.”
“I pay tribute to the Royal Navy and echo the point made by the Minister in respect of our brave personnel. I agree with him that we have the best Navy in the world—I just wish it were larger. I am unclear from what the Minister has said about whether we have had more than a narrative of what has happened over the last month and of our capabilities in respect of these events. What has actually changed in the Government’s planning with respect to defending our undersea infrastructure from Russia, in terms of either the disposition of our forces or procurement, perhaps? Also, he mentions the resilience of our undersea infrastructure. Can he tell the House a little about what plans we have to cope with an attack on undersea cables and how quickly we could recover from one?”
“It is about the state enabling and authorising its agency throughout the public sector to rely meaningfully on the charity sector, so that it can do that in all the areas we have been discussing, including addiction, re-offending, homelessness, children in care—these knotty, wicked problems that cause so much distress and pain in our society and which the state is so inadequate at dealing with.”
“Fundamentally, we need a big, new settlement with the charity sector; in fact, with society itself. This is not just about registered charities. It is about social organisations in all their forms. We need to trust communities much more fully, with all the mess, the disparity and what is called the postcode lottery that that can sometimes induce. We need to support philanthropy and direct public support—I think the United Kingdom could become the absolute global centre of philanthropy. The City of London should regard that as one of its key investment markets. But this is not actually just about money, private or public.”
“I think the big society was the best thing that David Cameron did—except perhaps for calling a referendum on the European Union—yet it did not quite work. It did not quite work for two main reasons. One is that the Treasury did not really believe in it— George Osborne never got the point of the charity sector and its role in public life and in policy. Secondly, the difficulty is that if the state starts to support charities, it ends up basically enabling big charities to occupy the space that state agencies did previously. They effectively game the provisions that are made with the purpose of supporting the small charity sector, to exclude the small charities and create barriers to entry for those small organisations that it is so difficult for national Government to see and to work with.”
“We all love our small charities, and I, too, could run through a list of brilliant ones that work in East Wiltshire—I do want to quickly mention the LINK service, which drives people around the county, particularly to medical appointments. That is such an important service, provided totally free and voluntarily to the community. However, I want to use the time I have to make a more strategic point. The role of small charities is not just for us as MPs to champion in a sort of neutral sense—“Oh, aren’t they good?” There is something profoundly important about this network for public policy. I was involved, as the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green was, in those early years of thinking about social responsibility in the era of David Cameron.”
“I have two quick declarations of interest. I am the founder and still chairman of a charity working in prisons. It is 21 years old this year. My second declaration of interest is the fealty I owe to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith)—my original, and still my feudal lord. He is the leader that I first worked for. I pay tribute to all the work he has done over many years. I remember very well the Easterhouse visit and setting up the Centre for Social Justice, and all the work that he has done over the last two decades to advance the cause of social justice, particularly through the work of small charities.”
“This is such an important debate. I want to pick up on the suggestion of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell). Although it is obviously very helpful if small charities, which do not have financial resources or indeed necessarily the right data, can demonstrate their value to the public sector, let us not build systems that force charities into a model that really works only for public sector agencies or large charities. The whole value of these small projects is that they do not have those clear processes, outputs and data, with everything being reduced to unit costs. We have to have a system that actually honours the way that charities work, rather than trying to force them into some kind of proxy of that quantitative model for demonstrating value.”
“I do not know what is more humiliating for the United Kingdom: the moral weakness of a Government who cannot distinguish between right and wrong, and who cannot even take a sovereign decision without consulting international lawyers; or the material weakness of a country that has just decommissioned its last frigate in the Gulf and, as the Prime Minister has said in his statement, does not have the capability to defend our own citizens in the region. Given this position of neutrality and impotence, will the Prime Minister clarify what exactly he means by defensive versus offensive action? The whole operation is offensive according to the terms that the Prime Minister has set out. Or does he expect that the British will have some sort of operational veto on individual American flights that take off from our bases?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“It is important that we speak truthfully and honestly in this place, so I will say what is clearly true and what we all know: we are talking about south-east Asian communities, as has been clearly and objectively demonstrated in the past. We are talking about people taking their orders on how to vote from mosques and from clans—often direct from Pakistan. We are seeing the criminal abuse of democracy by Labour—”