YouSaid · the spoken record
Danny Kruger
Lines from Political Thinking with Nick Robinson have been withdrawn from this page while we check who is speaking. See the correction.
On the record 2020–2026
hansard
This is everything the corpus holds for Danny Kruger. It is not everything they have said on the record.
Every line below is reproduced as it was said and credited to the record it came from, and links to that record wherever it can be linked. Nothing here is summarised or generated. Directory · Search · Corrections
“Q11. Can the Prime Minister confirm that the Budget calculations assume the approval of the Rosebank gasfield, and, if so, has he told the Energy Secretary of this important development? If he is now taking back control of energy policy, will he approve more North sea exploration and, while he is at it, speed up the roll-out of nuclear as well?”
House of Commons28 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I support the principle of the Bill and obviously will not oppose it. May I ask the Minister to unpack the point he just made about the role of the Prime Minister in conveying the advice of the Church on appointments? That is exactly how it works at the moment. As the Minister said, the Prime Minister is the principal adviser to the sovereign, and ultimately it is the sovereign who has authority to make episcopal appointments. Does he agree that the Prime Minister has a function to play in the advice given to the sovereign, or does he think this is purely a procedural matter in which the Prime Minister is simply transmitting advice that he receives from the Church hierarchy?”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My concern about the debate so far is that the Bill has been interpreted as some great step of progressive modernisation that clearly ends with the exclusion of Christianity from political life altogether. Does he agree that what we actually we need to do is strengthen the role of the Church of England in the political community and remind the Prime Minister of this very important part of his or her job?”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The hon. Gentleman is making an important speech. Does he agree with me that the value of this Bill is that it could strengthen the Church of England and reconnect it with the political community of which it is properly a part? Does he agree with me that, as I said when I intervened on the Minister, it is not right to leave the appointment of bishops purely to the bureaucrats at Church House and committees there, and that it is a proper subject for politics? We have heard the suggestion that this is a second-order priority, and I recognise that there are more pressing concerns for the country, but this stuff matters—Gladstone thought the most important part of his job as Prime Minister was appointing bishops.”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“What we do not want bureaucrats in the Church of England appointing each other, which is what we have at the moment—that is why they are all left wing. Surely the right hon. Gentleman would acknowledge that we need a genuinely broad church that includes people from different political traditions.”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am sorry to jump up again, but I want to challenge the right hon. Gentleman. That was no doubt the case in the 19th century, but if he reads the brilliant book by Mark Vickers called “God In Number 10”, which is a history of 20th century Prime Ministers from Balfour to Blair, he will see that it is an opposite story. The book is a remarkable account of how very different Prime Ministers all took their responsibilities seriously, as the right hon. Gentleman said, right up to John Major. They honoured the fact that different dioceses had different traditions, and they tried to ensure that there was ecumenical balance in the Church of England. I do not think it is beyond a Prime Minister of any party to take their job seriously, think about the right balance of the Church of England and maintain the broad church.”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The military cannot develop skills unless they can actually train. Does the Secretary of State share my concern? Does he agree that it is absolutely scandalous that non-essential training has been suspended across large parts of the British Army because there is no money? Will he tell the House when training will resume on Salisbury plain?”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Just consider the insult that that represents to our soldiers. I pay tribute to and honour the point that the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) made. Our soldiers beat the IRA to a standstill. They fought it to the negotiating table, and then they had to take the final indignity, which is that they, not the IRA, would face the threat of the law and of prosecution.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is those elements that are now used against the Army, and that is the structural imbalance we face. That was apparent right at the beginning, when the Good Friday agreement was being implemented. A letter has been released recently from John Reid, the Northern Ireland Secretary in 2001. He was writing to Tony Blair, the Prime Minister, and he made it clear that the proposed arrangement, in which an amnesty would be offered to terrorists but not to British veterans, was asymmetric and unjust, but that for reasons of political necessity, that is how it had to be. As Dr Parr has pointed out, the asymmetric exclusion of the security forces was therefore not the product of principled legal reasoning or an honest assessment of comparative culpability; it was the price of republican acquiescence in a political settlement.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Of course, that is not intentional—the intention is to provide equity and parity—but the problem is structural. The fact is that only a 10th of the deaths that happened during the troubles were caused by the security services, but it is men and women in uniform who must bear almost the whole institutional burden under the law as it stands, and that will not change under this Bill. The IRA and other paramilitary organisations got letters of comfort, early release and pardons. They had their weapons decommissioned without any forensic testing being done. Meanwhile, the British Army kept its records—indeed, it operated under the chain of command. It had accountability built into the work that it did; in fact, it had all the elements that made its decisions as safe as possible, as a military operating under the laws of a democracy.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Why would that have to be stated in law, unless the Bill might be thought to suggest the opposite—that the law as it stands, and the Bill, could imply that equivalence? At the heart of why the Bill remains inadequate is the essential imbalance in the legal procedures that the legacy of Northern Ireland applies. I pay tribute to a group of veterans I met recently—some special forces and some others—led by Dr Robert Parr, an academic at Oxford who was a Royal Marine and in special forces. He has written a very powerful paper that makes the simple point that the legal system—this is not addressed by the Bill; in fact, the Bill consolidates it— “privileges the claims of former paramilitaries over those of the men and women who served the Crown”.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The amendments that have been adduced as improving the Bill and addressing the concerns that have been raised do not, I am afraid, offer new protections. Many of them relate to measures that are already in force and could be applied, particularly those on the opportunities for anonymity and remote hearings. The amendments and the new clauses are mostly simply important moral statements of what should be obvious. In particular, new clause 32 states that there is no equivalence between terrorist action and legal actions. It is extraordinary that it needs to be said that “a relevant person” in an inquest or proceedings “must have regard to…the fact that force may lawfully be used to prevent unlawful violence”. And what a thing to need to say that lawful action is not equivalent to terrorism!”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In the seven years that I have been a Member of this House, I do not think that I have been in a more respectful, positive and high-quality debate. There have been some absolutely outstanding contributions from across the House. I am not going to reach that standard, but I am proud to participate in the debate. I particularly acknowledge the contributions made by colleagues from Northern Ireland. Having visited a number of times recently, I can attest that they do politics pretty well there; there is a standard of speech-making that reflects the seriousness of politics there, and we have all benefited from that this evening. My observation about the Bill and the amendments brought forward by the Government is that they essentially still fail on a core moral principle, which I will come to.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“There are many reasons for leaving it, and my party makes those points repeatedly. It protects terrorists and stops the deportation of illegal immigrants, but the most important reason is that it enables the prosecution of our soldiers. On those grounds, we must leave it.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We need a new process for war crimes under English law, and a new legal basis for military conduct without European law. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) and the private Member’s Bill he has introduced; I think that Bill goes in the right direction, but we can go even further. It particularly emphasises—this is the core point—that the chain of command is ultimately responsible for the actions of soldiers on the ground, and Ministers are ultimately responsible for the use of force, not the poor bloke who had to take a decision in a split-second, at risk of life. I suggest that something more is needed even than what the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington suggests. We need to go further—we need to pull out of the ECHR altogether.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is the way to heal a community; evidence from transitional justice programmes around the world, particularly in South Africa, demonstrates that that is the way to achieve healing in a community. The hon. Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) put it very well when he talked about the need for positive peace—national peace and reconciliation. Mrs Jones, the lady we have adverted to throughout this debate, is not going to get justice through the law, but if we genuinely open the archives—including the archives in Dublin—and encourage truthfulness, she could get the truth. Going forward, we need to stop all future prosecutions of the sort that have persecuted our veterans, and we need a Bill that draws a line under the Northern Irish troubles, as well as the Haddon-Cave inquiry.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“What is happening is that the Government—and I honour them for doing this—are trying to reconcile common sense and decency, and the obvious appeal for justice on behalf of veterans, with the human rights framework that we have. I am afraid to say that that simply cannot be done, so I will end with a few thoughts about the future and the system that we need. We must start by reverting to the Good Friday/Belfast agreement, and to the principles that Tony Blair oversaw back then. He chose peace over justice, and he was right to do so. That was the right principle. Now, in our time, we need to choose truth over individual justice for people who can never realistically hope to attain individual justice.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“He says that “the requirement that individuals be able to foresee the legal consequences of their actions at the time of those actions” is itself “a foundational element of the rule of law to which the ECHR is ostensibly committed.” In passing, let me turn to one other indignity and injustice that, I am afraid, has been consolidated by this Bill. No accountability has ever been forthcoming from the Irish state, elements of which were arguably responsible for enabling, colluding with and covering up the actions of terrorists during the troubles, and none is expected in the future, despite the warm words of the Secretary of State. Thanks to this Bill, though, the Irish Government will play a crucial role in our own justice system. That is wrong.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is not what was expected or accepted at the time, but back in those days, people reckoned without the European convention on human rights, the consequences of the Human Rights Act 1998, and the lawfare that the convention has brought into reality in our time, in this century. In particular, article 2 of the ECHR applies retrospectively to the investigations, based on the inadequacy of the investigations under standards that did not apply back in those days. That is the essential injustice of the law as it stands and of this Bill; there is a fundamental violation of the principle of legal certainty. Let me quote Dr Parr again.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is absolutely right. There was a question from the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) earlier about who won. The answer is that, in so far as this was a military conflict, we know who won: it was the British Army, particularly with the help of special forces, but it had to suffer that indignity in consequence. It accepted as the price of peace the indignity and injustice of being exposed to the principle of liability and the threat of prosecution, while the IRA was indemnified. That was a bitter enough pill, but the actual practice of repeat prosecutions on the scale that we have seen—not the threat, but the reality—is unacceptable.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We are very familiar with that argument. I do not think this is the time to have that debate, but I am confident—and there has been a lot of learned advice to this effect—that it is totally possible to withdraw from the ECHR while maintaining our obligations under the Good Friday agreement.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As ever, it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy). I congratulate the petitioners, but I am afraid the heart sinks in this debate. I think it took less than three minutes before we heard about the 350 million quid on the side of the bus, which is one of the great canards. Of course, that was paid; one of the few things that Theresa May actually did for Brexit was make that very significant increase in the NHS budget. We have heard about the migrant return scheme under the EU, which was never used and never actually returned any migrants.”
House of Commons12 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The key aspects of that system are light-touch regulation and legal certainty, which are features of common law and the United Kingdom’s economy. Legal systems matter, and the civil law system that the EU operates and applied to the UK is different, as it involves heavy regulation and legal uncertainty. Where we have remained constrained by EU law, such as in electric or self-driving cars, we do just as badly as the EU. However, where we have diverged—where we have used our Brexit freedoms—that is where we are prospering. Of course, AI technology is the key evidence of that.”
House of Commons12 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Mario Draghi, the former Italian Prime Minister and chairman of the European Central Bank, wrote a brilliant report that conclusively demonstrated how much it is the EU itself that holds back European growth, and why it is so regrettable that Britain has remained aligned in so many sectors. Let me quickly state what actually works for prosperity and what drives economic growth. Last year’s Nobel prize winners won for their brilliant work demonstrating why there has been sustained growth in the world for the last 200 years. It is not because of market share or market access, as valuable as that is; it is because of innovation and technology. It is because of a regulatory system, largely derived from the United Kingdom, that enables businesses to prosper.”
House of Commons12 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Here, as the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) said, the UK has done better than our European competitors. Let us just be straightforward about this: the whole of Europe, including the United Kingdom, has suffered economically over the last decade. Different sectors have prospered and suffered in different ways. Although we have not suffered in services exports, we have suffered in goods exports, and I recognise that. However, those goods losses overlap with stupid political choices made by our sovereign United Kingdom, particularly in respect of energy policy. Where we have also suffered and struggled is where our regulations have remained aligned with the EU. The fact is that European regulations have caused Europe to decline, and where we have also declined, it is because we have remained aligned with them.”
House of Commons12 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am just going to keep going. I do not think we are actually having a debate; we are just exchanging our speeches, so I will not give way. I sympathise with the points we have heard, such as those made about zoos, Spanish delis or Freddy and his band. It is clearly very frustrating how the EU has treated its close friend, the UK, after Brexit, and that has had very unfortunate consequences for those businesses. We need to look at this issue from a much bigger perspective, and here the facts are much more contested about the overall benefits and costs of Brexit. When we talk about these always cited statistics on the decline in GDP since 2026, we are comparing an unknowable counterfactual with what has actually happened in the real European Union and the UK.”
House of Commons12 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The AI that the hon. Lady used to write her speech is the benefit of Brexit, and we all benefit enormously from the UK’s leadership in this enormous sector. We attract as much investment in our AI sector as the whole EU27 combined. That is what divergence looks like, and that is what growth looks like. What is happening is that the EU—and I am afraid the Government—is deliberately locking the United Kingdom into its regulatory system, so that it becomes increasingly apparent that there will be no opportunity to leave. [Interruption.] I am very unclear about the speech times, Sir Edward. Have I gone over?”
House of Commons12 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I have pages and pages to go, but I will end on this point. The opportunity remains for the United Kingdom to prosper from the tremendous decision that the British people took 10 years ago. Because of poor Government choices, made under the Conservatives and Labour, the United Kingdom is suffering. However, the answer is not to take a step back into the EU.”
House of Commons12 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Research from the Department for Education confirms that children who move schools frequently often suffer poor outcomes, particularly children with special educational needs. That is why a number of armed forces families—people on average incomes—choose independent education to minimise the disruption that results from their postings. May I ask the Secretary of State, with her new Education team, whether she will publish—perhaps jointly with the Ministry of Defence—research showing whether the introduction of VAT on school fees has led to an increase in the number of in-year moves, especially among service families?”
House of Commons14 September 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“There is what might be an important innovation in the text of this year’s sovereign grant annual report and accounts, which the Bill refers to and which the Minister is describing. Usually, the description of the sovereign’s role includes the term “defender of the faith”, but that term does not appear in this year’s report and accounts. Instead, the monarch is referred to as the “Supreme Governor of the Church of England”. That is good. The report also says that he “protects the space for Faith within the multi-faith nation.” That is an admirable ambition, but I invite the Minister to confirm that no alteration to the monarch’s role is implied in that change. If there were to be such an alteration, would it be debated properly in Parliament, rather than introduced quietly through these sorts of official reports?”
House of Commons14 September 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Resilience is obviously the crucial question for the country, and the Government are right to be focusing on the need to strengthen the centre of Government to achieve that. My concern is about the legislation that has been trailed. According to a leak—presumably from a briefing from the Cabinet Office—reported in The Times this week, the Cabinet Secretary is proposing to take new powers to direct permanent secretaries of Government Departments. Will the Minister confirm whether legislation is planned to change the statutory basis of the civil service? Most importantly, does he think that the Cabinet Secretary should or should not have the power to direct permanent secretaries?”
House of Commons10 September 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Q10. I applaud the Prime Minister’s focus on civil society and on support for young people, but the fact is that in his time as Mayor of Greater Manchester youth employment did not improve. In fact, it got worse and no amount of taxpayer-funded support is going to fix that. Will the Prime Minister accept that the way to get young people into work is to provide meaningful tax cuts for businesses and to ensure that people who can work should be working?”
House of Commons2 September 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I want to be constructive because I welcome the creation of a stronger centre, with a proper political centre in No. 10 and a corporate HQ for the non-political functions. My question to the Minister is: what is the residual point of the Cabinet Office in this new structure? Some 12,000 people are currently employed in the Cabinet Office and all its quangos. Some of them will be redistributed, but what is the point of that office in future? Likewise, what is the point of the Cabinet Secretary’s post? How is anything going to change when the same people are working in the same buildings, under the same incentives?”
House of Commons2 September 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“She is talking about individuals, British citizens, who have made money and are choosing to donate it in support of political causes that they believe in, as is their right.”
House of Commons2 September 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy)—always reliable—who made clear exactly what the Bill is about and who it is aimed at. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Walthamstow, too, for pointing out that the Bill exempts from any suggestion of a restriction donations by trade unions, which have given £17 million to the Labour party in the last five years, £10 million of that at the last election. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] They are delighted; they welcome it. Of course they are happy with that sort of support. This is partisan and highly partial legislation. I put on record my resentment and outrage on behalf of the people who have generously given to Reform UK, whom the Minister called “malign actors”. I wonder who she is referring to.”
House of Commons2 September 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Bill contains a lot of useful tightening of electoral law, and we are having a very important debate this afternoon. It is important that we think about how we police donations from abroad and from home. I pay tribute to the remarks made by the hon. Members for Hexham (Joe Morris) and for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali) about the impact of algorithms, social media and deepfakes. There are clearly threats to our democracy from technology that the Bill does not closely address. Let us face it: the Bill is not concerned with those questions. The claim is made that the Bill will defend democracy, but it is actually a flagrantly partisan attempt to kneecap Reform UK. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) and the hon.”
House of Commons2 September 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The first is that voters belong to this country, that they are citizens of this country with the allegiance and commitment that that brings. There were historically exceptions made for small numbers of Commonwealth citizens and Irish citizens who were in this country. That now needs to change. The number of Irish citizens is still very low, but there are now 2.5 million Commonwealth citizens resident in this country who are entitled to vote in our elections who are not citizens of the United Kingdom. That is wrong; it is time to correct that anomaly.”
House of Commons2 September 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is what the populist revolt is doing, demonstrating the effectiveness and vibrancy of our democracy. Let me turn to the amendments that I support, because we do have a real threat to our democracy, and let me make these points as seriously and soberly as I can. Our democracy is underwired by a series of principles and practices that were traditionally historically implicit in the system and therefore did not need to be stated. They did not need to be stated, but now they do, and they need to be stated because over the last couple of generations, we have brought into this country millions of people, many of whom do not understand or honour those implicit principles. Let me go through the changes that are necessary to make explicit formerly implicit principles.”
House of Commons2 September 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“No, I am not going to give way. It is their right to support a political cause in their own country, where they are registered to vote and of which they are citizens. It is absolutely wrong to traduce them in that way. Some suggest that the Bill will restore trust in politics, which is exactly what is needed, but what they mean is restore trust in the class of politicians and in the political parties that have got us into the mess that we are in— [ Interruption ] — including, I am afraid to say, the party of which I was a part. That is why I left it. We need change. I am glad to say that our democracy is actually working. A new force is arising, and it will put the interests of the British people, not the class of politicians and parties that got us into this mess, first.”
House of Commons2 September 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Lastly, the system depends on the principle that people vote individually, on their own; it is a secret choice. That principle is clearly not fully understood or honoured, as we have seen in the abuse of voting in recent elections—so-called family voting. It is already illegal, so we need to ensure that it does not happen.”
House of Commons2 September 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“No, I will not. The second implicit principle that we now need to bring to the surface is that we are one country, speaking a common language, taking part in a single election concerning matters about our country. That means election materials printed in English and the other native languages of the British isles. That might feel like a small thing or a petty one, but it is an important principle. How can we integrate genuinely? How can we bring our divided country together if we do not do our democracy in the same language? The third principle that was implicit before is that people vote in person. We now have a quarter of all votes in the last general election being cast by proxy. That is open to flagrant abuse, and we will restrict that.”
House of Commons2 September 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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?”
House of Commons15 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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?”
House of Commons6 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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?”
House of Commons6 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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?”
House of Commons30 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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?”
House of Commons22 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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?”
House of Commons22 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons22 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons22 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons22 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗