Oral Answers to Questions

Danny Kruger Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am proud of the fact that, because the usual frameworks would not work—the UN; the EU, which was blocked by Hungary; and NATO, which Ukraine is not in—we pulled together a coalition of the willing, led by the French and the UK, and now the Germans. I am honoured that we are joined in the Gallery by the Ukrainian ambassador. Let me say to him and to all Ukrainians: we are united in this House against Russian aggression. That work began before I was Prime Minister and will continue afterwards, because Ukraine’s security is our security. This House is proud to stand with you.

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)]

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 Prime Minister]

I know that Reform believes in recycling politicians, but I wonder whether spending the summer arguing with a bin was what the hon. Gentleman had in mind when he defected to the Reform Benches.

Civil Service Pensions

Danny Kruger Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Yes, we will continue to work with trade unions and other stakeholders. Yes, it is correct that £9.9 million in milestone payments has been withheld, but my hon. Friend can rest assured that I will not hesitate to continue to use all commercial levers if there is poor performance.

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)]

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?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I know that the hon. Gentleman has looked carefully at a number of these things. The point of the public interest test is to end outsourcing by default, but he is right that there is an additional cross-governmental issue: the management of contracts. That is something that I have certainly been thinking about looking at in the Cabinet Office, and the hon. Gentleman is correct to say that we need to look at it across the board.

Belfast: Violent Disorder

Danny Kruger Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for his condemnation of the violence and the words he said in praise of those who acted with great courage. I understand his points about PSNI resources. I have discussed those matters twice previously with the Chief Constable in Northern Ireland, and I am certain that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will be having further conversations with the Chief Constable today and on an ongoing basis. I recognise the concerns that the hon. Member has raised, and the Secretary of State and colleagues across Government will want to reflect on them further in the light of recent events.

The hon. Member also made an important point about the common travel area. As he will know, it is without border controls, and that has been the case for many years. Currently, that data cannot be collected. However, we have immigration enforcement teams who conduct intelligence-led raids, and we have a new data-sharing agreement among the UK Government, local authorities and the PSNI to protect the CTA from abuse. We will look carefully at the points he has raised, and there will be further conversations with ministerial colleagues about them.

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)]

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?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful for the condemnation of the violent behaviour that we saw. It is right that we all do that and do not allow any ambiguity in the words we use in that regard. The hon. Member will understand that I do not share the particular critique that he has offered of the Government in recent times, not least because the number of foreign national offenders who have been deported is up by 36%. That is more than 10,000 people who have been deported since this Government came to office. He raises specific concerns about the common travel area. We work closely with the Irish Government to protect the integrity and security of the common travel area, while at the same time preserving the rights of British and Irish citizens. Where there is a requirement for us to do more, we will have to look at that.

Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment

Danny Kruger Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)]

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. 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. 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.

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. 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. 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. 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.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Security Vetting

Danny Kruger Excerpts

Monday 20th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

As I have said, the process was that the appointment was subject to developed vetting checks being carried out. Had I been made aware of the recommendation of UKSV, I would not have made the appointment. What I did after the event was ask Sir Chris Wormald to look back at the process, which he did according to and by reference to the Simon Case letter, and he assured me that the process had been carried out properly.

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)]

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?

[The Prime Minister]

They acted entirely appropriately. They came across the information as part of the Humble Address exercise. They took legal advice on who it could be disclosed to, and disclosed it to me as soon as they got that legal advice. That was the right thing to do.

Middle East

Danny Kruger Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

There are many discussions going on, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, and I understand his level of concern, particularly in relation to religious freedom. We are working with colleagues on those issues and I will update the House accordingly.

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)]

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?

[The Prime Minister]

We are taking action in the sky through our pilots and we have authorised the US to use our bases in order to attack the Iranians’ ability to strike, but I will take no lectures on morality from a member of a party that stood a candidate who said that you cannot be English unless you are white.

Labour Together and APCO Worldwide: Cabinet Office Review

Danny Kruger Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

The terms of reference for the independent ethics adviser are already published, as is the ministerial code; as I have been able to confirm today, the advice that the adviser provides to the Prime Minister will also be published. All those documents will therefore be available to the House. As my hon. Friend knows, the Government support the proposals of the Hillsborough law and are working at pace to be able to complete the legislation to ensure that a duty of candour is on the statute books.

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)]

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?

[Darren Jones]

The Prime Minister made the ethics adviser independent on coming into government because of the misuse of that process by former Prime Ministers who were trying to cover up for their friends. The independent ethics adviser has not only illustrated his independence but proven that the independent process works, because where Ministers have been in breach of the code, the Prime Minister has sacked them as a consequence.

The hon. Member made a statement that the leader of the propriety and ethics team was a former Labour Together staffer. That is not true, and that should be acknowledged. He asked why Ministers have to remain in post while they are being investigated by the independent ethics adviser. Those are the rules for the system that we inherited. He raises an interesting question, and we should consider that for the future, but for the time being the rules are as established, and they require a Minister to stay in post while they are being investigated.

Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address

Danny Kruger Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

The commission for information from Departments that is taking place has not yet resulted in those documents being shared with the Cabinet Office. If issues need to be pursued further once the documents are shared, we reserve the right to do so.

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)]

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?

[Darren Jones]

It is interesting to hear from a Member on the Reform Benches that they do not agree with process or vetting. The Government are committed to both those things, because that is the way in which Government should conduct itself. As the Prime Minister has said at the Dispatch Box, had he had the information that we all have now available to him at the point of appointment, he would not have appointed Peter Mandelson. On that basis, he has apologised for any distress that that has caused for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein.

China and Japan

Danny Kruger Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I agree with my hon. Friend; we are the best in the world. The people from the creative sector and the cultural institutions were with us on the visit because they could see the great advantage in better relations and better engagement, and not only in relation to the cultural aspects but because, of course, they are themselves really important businesses.

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)]

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?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes. Engaging is really important for the security of this country. Just for clarity, we did not sign a trade deal on the visit; we simply looked at the ways in which we can open the opportunities for businesses. There were 60 big businesses with us on the visit, and they are absolutely clear about the advantages to them. I would much rather take their view on the advantages than the nonsense that is being spouted on the other side of this House.

Dawn Sturgess Inquiry

Danny Kruger Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend, who puts it very well. The greatest legacy, as well as remembering the tragic loss of life in this case, would be to ensure that our collective defences as a country are tightened to the extent that such an attack could never happen again. Of course, the Russian regime will constantly test our defences and we will have to remain incredibly vigilant. It is the responsibility of the Government to ensure that we have the appropriate levels of resource, and that the United Kingdom is the hardest possible operating environment for Russia and its proxies, but he is right to remind us of where responsibility for this heinous act lies: with President Putin.

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)]

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?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for the very sensible and constructive nature of his remarks. I recognise his service as a Wiltshire MP and his obvious constituency interest in this matter. I also genuinely welcome his condemnation of the treachery that we have seen recently, and I am glad that he made that point. He raises a sensible and constructive point with regard to the NHS, and I can give him the assurances that he seeks regarding the Government’s attention to these matters. One of the reasons why the Prime Minister took the machinery of Government change back in September to ensure that I, as Security Minister, sit across both the Home Office and the Cabinet Office was to maximise the leverage and co-ordination across Government with regard not only to national security policy, but to our resilience, and we have recently undertaken the largest ever resilience exercise across Government. He is right to raise that point. I give him an assurance of the seriousness with which we take these matters. We will, of course, look very carefully at the report’s recommendations in that regard. I am grateful to him for his comments today.