EU-UK Summit

Danny Kruger Excerpts

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Richard Tice]

I did not say anything about downplaying; I said that if the Government are going to agree a deal, they should agree the terms of the deal. They should not just say, “We’d like a bit of the action. Please tell us how much it’ll cost us later,” and have no idea how much of the action they will get. That is a terrible deal, and we all know that no deal is better than a bad deal.

The third surrender is about becoming a rule-taker. The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) referred to agrifoods and the SPS deal, which all sounds very good, except that we now have to take a load of extra rules from Brussels that we have no input into under a process called dynamic alignment, which might mean that we cannot do any further trade deals with great nations such as the United States. That is instead of arguing for mutual recognition, which can of course exist between nations that have excellent standards of food and products, as we do.

We have gained nothing from those three great surrenders. Indeed, we will probably have to pay more if we want any more rules to be given to us, but why would we pay more when we have given ourselves the freedom not to have to pay? I thought we had done all of that.

If we are not content with that, what about the fourth surrender—the big one? Earlier this year, the Minister said, “Don’t worry, chaps—no plans for any form of youth mobility scheme.” It turns out that he was right, because some clever person rebadged it: “I’ve got an idea. Let’s call it a youth experience scheme.” Well, I am sure it is a lovely experience, but when someone is 30 years old, are they still a youth? Is it a middle age experience scheme? During the negotiation—because it has not been concluded —I can see that it will then become an old age experience scheme. Then, someone will say, “Hang on, if it’s an old age experience scheme, we don’t have the workers to look after the old people from the EU who’ve come over to our glorious care homes.” So then we will have to have more freedom of movement.

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)]

And dependants.

[Richard Tice]

And dependants, because the scheme is still open-ended. We do not know the age or number of people involved in the youth experience scheme, and we have no idea about its duration. I am hoping that I will still qualify at the age of 60.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)]

I pay tribute to the Members who secured the debate: the hon. Members for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) and for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice). It is a case of singing the greatest hits of the past—singing the old songs—in a beautiful duet, presaging some appalling coalition.

I pay particular tribute to the hon. Lady; I recognise her expertise and her interest in this topic. Speaking of greatest hits, she invoked Elsa in “Frozen”, and I recognise the self-identification. Of all people, her soul is spiralling in frozen fractals, but she has a warm heart underneath. Of course we do know that, at the end of that film, Elsa returned to the castle. That is the ultimate purpose of some Members speaking in this debate; they want to return to the embrace of the EU.

I honour that, and I accept that some people were not happy with the result of the referendum. I would not have been happy if it had gone the other way, and I would not have given up campaigning to leave. Nevertheless, I wish there was more honesty from the Government Benches in recognising that what is being debated here is the first step to rejoining. That is the underlying purpose, because all the arguments that have been made against the previous deal were really arguments against Brexit, and all the arguments that are being made in support of this arrangement are arguments for rejoining. As it was eloquently put by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth), the case for co-operation in Europe is really a case for rejoining.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

The point is, if people are prepared to compromise on dynamic alignment for food and agriproducts, what issue of principle will act as a barrier to prevent them extending that co-operation to other products or other fields of European law where they think it is ideologically convenient to do so? The only problem is that, if they think they are currying favour with the European Union by doing so, they will be disappointed, because the EU will simply ask for more concessions without making concessions of its own.

[Danny Kruger]

My hon. Friend is right. I will cite a very good article in The Spectator last week by Oliver Lewis, who was the deputy negotiator for the Brexit deal and the trade agreement. He wrote rather wearily about recognising the terms that had been agreed by the Government, because they were the terms that the previous Government continually resisted in negotiations. His point, which echoes that of my hon. Friend, was that the way the EU works is to force agreement on headline principles, which, over time, are translated into concrete policy. Where a thin end of the wedge can be driven in, as it can be with this agreement, more and more follows. That is what we should anticipate.

It is worth pointing out how thin the terms of the agreement are and how much detail remains to be worked out. We have conceded a set of principles that will allow ever closer alignment and submission to the regime that we painfully left some years ago. We see coming submission to the European Court of Justice, an agreement on rule-taking, a return to the single market in agribusiness, as my hon. Friend mentioned, and paying money into the EU budget.

Those were the explicit things that all parties in this House committed to ending when we agreed the outcome of the referendum. In 2019, both main parties agreed to abide by them, and in 2024, they agreed to abide by them and explicitly ruled out submission to the European Court of Justice, paying money and returning to the single market, all of which has now been agreed in principle by the Government. It is only a set of principles, but they are bad principles; they represent the betrayal of Brexit and of our manifestos. I will not go through the specifics, because other Members have done so very well, but I will quickly point out how thin these agreements are.

On e-gates, there will be some benefit for the Dordogne-visiting community that some of us have in our constituencies, but it is not a great achievement. Indeed, it is not even an achievement for this summer, so although I hope the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) is enjoying his holiday in France, I do not think he will have benefited from the deal. He will probably have gone through an e-gate anyway, however, because there are already many e-gates that British citizens can use when going to and fro. That arrangement will still need to be negotiated, with each member state operating its own independent policy.

We have discussed food, and I will not go on about that other than to say that we have agreed to take the EU’s laws but we do not have any detail yet. Because we export so little, any benefit from a reciprocal arrangement will greatly benefit the EU at the expense of our exporters.

[Sir John Hayes]

To illustrate that point, looking at the figures the UK is the EU’s biggest export market. We receive about €51 billion of goods from the EU and return about €15.4 billion, so there is no doubt about where the balance lies. To emphasise the point made by my hon. Friend, the problem is that so much of this is smoke and mirrors. When we hear about realignment being dynamic or about subsidiarity, as we used to hear, those are terms that are used to disguise exactly the kind of pernicious detail that he set out.

[Danny Kruger]

I absolutely agree. I am afraid that the argument against EU membership, which was the trade imbalance, remains and has only grown with time.

I will not talk about our unhappy fish; we hear enough about those poor creatures. On defence, there has been no detail in the plan other than an expectation of that new procurement arrangement and that we will be financially contributing to that. There is also no detail on the carbon trading arrangement other than a clear expectation of higher taxes and rule-taking through the emissions scheme. On free movement, we are still unclear. The statement talks about terms to be mutually agreed. What those terms might be—how many people will be coming, what commitments of support there are for them on housing, public services and benefits, and what happens if they refuse to leave—all remains unclear. I am very worried about the direction of travel.

The good news, to conclude, is that none of that is real. Those are all headline principles. Although the expectation is that the EU, having forced our famously legalistic Prime Minister to sign up to a set of agreements, will then induce him to believe that they are binding commitments and that he will have to honour them in practice, I implore him not to. I also implore the Minister to consider that we do not have to fulfil those terrible terms.

Lastly, on the economy, although people talk about the decline of trade since Brexit, trade was declining substantially long before. The EU is a declining corner of the world’s economy and the direction of travel has not changed much. The fundamental point is that Brexit has economically been largely a non-event. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) said, the underlying realities have remained largely untouched by it. Obviously, our economy was badly hit by covid, the Ukraine war and subsequently by the very bad Budget, and I admit, by some economic mistakes made by the last Government—let us be honest—but fundamentally the problems have not been related to Brexit.

To invoke some heroes of the last Parliament—particularly John Redwood, the great economic prophet of recent times—John Redwood shrugs at Brexit but Bill Cash rejoices because, fundamentally, it was not an economic decision that the British people made: it was about the restoration of sovereignty. It restored the possibility of good government to our country. I am afraid we did not get good government immediately after Brexit, and we certainly do not have it now. Many mistakes have been made and continue to be made, particularly by this new Government, but we now have the opportunity to govern ourselves in a way that will bring about the prosperity of the British people.

To quickly acknowledge the point made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), we still have not fixed the ongoing saga of Northern Ireland, and I deeply regret that the arrangements there persist in that most unsatisfactory way. The new agreement is clearly a declaration of intent to move back within the orbit of the EU and ultimately to rejoin.

I end by echoing the call from many hon. Members on both sides, and I honour the hon. Member for Walthamstow for her support. It is very important that we restore the European Scrutiny Committee and I hope that the Minister will agree.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Creasy]

Thank you, Mr Vickers, and Ms McVey for your able chairing of this afternoon’s debate.

I am probably going to show my age and why I am definitely not available for a youth exchange scheme, not by quoting Disney but by making an older reference. Dan Quayle’s words about surrender spring to mind when I hear the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) and other Opposition Members talk about Brexit. He said:

“My friends, no matter how rough the road may be, we can and we will, never, never surrender to what is right.”

Dan Quayle’s method of surrender is the approach of Reform and the Opposition making.

Today’s debate has shown why we need a salvage and not a rejoin operation, given the impact of Brexit. We now hear Opposition parties opposing any co-operation at all—moving the goalposts. I am old enough and have been in this place long enough to remember when Opposition Members used to push for some kind of Swiss-style deal. They wanted some form of co-operation; now they seem to want no deal at all. They want to ignore the Shellfish Association of Great Britain, which criticised the impact on Brexit deal shellfish markets. They want to ignore not just the supermarkets—a bad form of reference according to the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin)—but the British International Freight Association. I the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness to go and speak to the association, which talks about that deal as eliciting “a sigh of relief” regarding the practical changes for its members.

I understand that we are now no longer to go to Spain, France or even Italy on holiday—only Norfolk. Let me reassure the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) that I will be in Norfolk this summer, but I do not want to deny my constituents the ability to travel all because of the right hon. Gentleman’s obsession with isolation. I do not think we will see no French people go to Skegness. I am sure that if they did come, they would get a very warm welcome. I certainly do not think we want the Henry Ford-approach to arbitration, which says, “Our way or no way at all.” This debate has shown the value of a debate on this issue. I hope that the Minister will take back if not the ideas, then the idea that we can talk about these issues in this place once again.

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards), my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth), my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger), the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex, the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger), my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake), the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (James McMurdock), the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray), the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) and the Minister.

[Danny Kruger]

Does the hon. Lady share my regret that the Minister did not recommit the Government to introducing the Scrutiny Committee? Does she agree that we should continue to work to that end?

[Ms Creasy]

Yes, I do, and I know the Minister knows that. It is healthy for us to have these debates and I hope that we can continue to have them.

As I said, I am concerned and interested to see the future possibility of joining the Pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention and tackling the rules of origin paperwork. Mutual conformity will be an issue. I know there are more concerns about security and defence. This is such a big issue with such a potential impact on our future. The deal that the Minister has done this week shows that, because of the benefits it will bring. It is right that this place has that debate so that we can move on from Opposition Members appearing like Prince Hans and wanting to take us back to Weselton, rather than thinking about the future that we could offer to everybody.

I finish by again urging Opposition Members to let it go. “Frozen III” will offer us many new opportunities to revisit Olaf’s story and to see what happens to Anna and Elsa. Of course, the hon. Member for East Wiltshire will know that Anna saves Elsa through love. Let me offer some love, so as not to go back into the castle, but to move forward together, because things really will look good when we are older.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the EU-UK summit.

UK-EU Summit

Danny Kruger Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)]

As this is a debate in the name of His Majesty’s Opposition, it is only right that I share some personal reflections on the record of the Conservative party when it was in government. I am feeling generous, Madam Deputy Speaker: I am sure the House will be pleased to know that this will be a brief speech. But I am also feeling generous because I want to begin with three simple and constructive suggestions for the Conservative party on its future approach to the European Union.

First, a good place to start would be by accepting that the Brexit deal signed in 2020 has done substantial damage to our economy. Fundamentally, it was a deal that put up barriers to trade. As the Office for Budget Responsibility concluded, the UK economy will be 4% smaller than previously expected. That means the country is on course to be £100 billion poorer than it otherwise would have been.

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)]

It is not the first time that the 4% figure has been referenced. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it was based on the assumption that UK-EU trade would fall and there would therefore be a hit to our productivity? In fact, EU-UK trade has risen since Brexit, so the whole basis of that assumption is wrong. Will he please acknowledge that?

[Andrew Lewin]

It is curious, is it not? I have seen Conservative Front Benchers talking up the OBR when it is convenient, but in this case, when they do not agree with it, they decry it and say we must not listen to it.

Step one: it is time to accept that it was a deal that made the country poorer and it must be looked at again.

My second tip would be to apologise to the business community. He is no longer a Member of this House, so perhaps it is time to fully disown the former Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip. As well as saying sorry for his language towards the business community, it might be time to say sorry to the 60% of companies that told the British chambers of commerce that it has become harder for them to trade as a direct consequence of the deal that was signed.

The highlight of the shadow Minister’s speech was his reference to “Quantum Leap”. He talked fondly of it, but I think it is time to jump back into the present. My third piece of advice is, therefore, that the Conservative party should listen to more podcasts. I know for a fact that the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride) and the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) listen to a certain weekly political podcast featuring former Chancellor George Osborne. I know they listen to it, because I have heard the voice notes they submitted as questions in recent weeks and months. It is an excellent podcast, but I fear that while Conservative MPs are tuning in, they are not really listening. George Osborne could not be more clear: the European Union is our single biggest trading partner and if we are serious about growing the economy, it is time for a new and more ambitious deal. On this, he and his co-host Ed Balls are united, and they are absolutely right.

I am a pro-European and an internationalist. In my short time in this place, I have already had the opportunity to speak at greater length in other debates on why now is the time for a substantial reset in the relationship with our largest trading partner. Today, I will not revisit those arguments at length. But we are less than a week away from the UK-EU summit and I am very hopeful that we will see a comprehensive deal that makes progress on security, trade and a visa-based youth mobility scheme.

This is not 2016 or 2020. While the Conservative party in Parliament may want to replay the old debates, public opinion in the country has moved on. In an uncertain and volatile world, there is no more important relationship for the UK than the one with our closest neighbour and biggest trading partner. People want to see progress. They want to see a deal that makes a material difference to their lives. I am confident that is exactly what this Labour Government will deliver, starting with the summit next week.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)]

I will start with a few words about the context of the debate. Clearly, the accusation—as though it were a negative—is that the campaign for Brexit had a sort of nostalgic, backward-looking spirit, and that those of us who supported it did so in that spirit. There is something in that, because we were talking about restoring British sovereignty; there was a sense that something good had been lost and needed to be brought back. All good revolutions are in a sense backward-looking; the bad revolutions are the progressive ones, while good revolutions restore what was lost. That is what Brexit was about.

Nevertheless, despite that point, which I do concede, fundamentally the case for Brexit was forward-looking. It was about putting this country in the best possible position to meet the challenges of the 21st century. This century demands agility, and the independence that sovereignty can allow. Obviously, there must be co-operation and close working in partnership—Britain has always been an outward-looking country—but nimbleness and agility will be needed in the highly contested new world that we are in. That is what Brexit was about, and on a number of hugely significant occasions since Brexit, we have already seen why our independence was so necessary. We saw it in our covid response, and in the context of Ukraine and our defence policy, and we see it now in our trade. Indeed, we have done since Brexit. We have seen it in the UK’s negotiations with the US, which we can compare with those undertaken by the EU in recent months.

On trade, as I said in an intervention, the challenge is often made that Brexit has harmed our GDP because it brought about a loss in productivity. The reverse is true. Trade with the EU has grown since Brexit, and it is not the case that we have suffered detriment because of that. Trade is growing between the UK and the whole world, including the EU, but it is growing more with non-EU countries, which makes the point about why it was so necessary to reclaim sovereignty over our trade policy. I echo the concerns raised by Conservative colleagues about what is being planned for next week, in terms of dynamic alignment on trade, and I call on the Minister to rule out a back-door alignment arrangement with the EU. We have seen worrying hints of that. I look forward to his response.

The case for Brexit was not primarily about trade. Of course, that is a very important matter, but let us acknowledge, as I think we all do, that really people were voting to take back control of our borders and our laws. Those two vital issues remain contested because this Government never believed in Brexit and do not understand the call of the people for independence and sovereignty in those two key respects.

On borders and immigration, I recognise the case for a youth mobility scheme. In principle, the abstract case for a reciprocal arrangement in which young people can spend a few months or a year working in another country is a good thing. The hon. Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes) said that it was a nice thing to do. Nevertheless, we see the value of such schemes only when there is a reciprocal arrangement and comparable numbers are coming and going. The same argument applies to the Indian trade deal and its reciprocal arrangement on national insurance. The fact is, many more people will take advantage of the so-called reciprocal arrangements by coming to the UK than will go either to India or to the EU, so we would not have a level playing field. As with free movement, this youth scheme would be another way for many more people to come to this country, undercutting British workers and continuing the stagnation of wages that we have suffered from for so many decades.

On laws and taking back control, I am concerned about the threat of European Court of Justice oversight of the trade arrangements, and potentially of the new veterinary agreement and deals on meat and dairy. I very much hope that the Minister will definitively rule out any extension of ECJ oversight. The fact is—we see this in the Government’s rather mealy-mouthed amendment to the motion—that Labour does not believe in Brexit.

I really honour the Green party for its amendment, because in that we hear the true voice of the pro-European movement. It is almost a parody. It suggests that free movement and rejoining the EU are what the country needs and would be in the national interest. Indeed, it suggests that it would be a way to counter the hard right. Have Green Members seen what is going on in Europe? The extension of the principles of ever closer union, deeper alignment and concentration of power at the European level is stoking the far right across Europe. The fundamental reason why the Conservative party has always been so successful, historically, is that we have spoken for those people who otherwise would be outraged. Reform has been doing well—by the way, I do not associate Reform with the far right—because it speaks for those outraged members of the public, many of whom used to vote for us and for the Labour party, who feel that their Parliament has let them down and politics has left them behind. That has happened across Europe in a much more dangerous way, so if we are serious about countering the danger of the right, we should be absolutely clear about there being no suggestion of any return to the EU.

Let me finish on Reform. Its Members are not here any more, but there we go. They have a rather amusing amendment to the motion, which simply replaces the words “Conservative party” with the words “Reform”. They are piggybacking somewhat on our good work, in a desperate search to be relevant and to catch up with the Conservative party, which is leading the way on this agenda. It is a bit of a problem, and two things occur to me: first, that they cannot even write an amendment of their own and they have to rely on us—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The hon. Member might reflect on the fact that the amendment to which he refers was not even selected, so he should not even be speaking to it.

[Danny Kruger]

I will therefore end just by saying that the amendment tabled by Reform, which I appreciate was not selected, demonstrates that we are on the same page and I deeply regret their opposition to what we are trying to do.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Reform Members are not here, so I will answer that point. They are not on the same page as us because their amendment, which was not a proper one, did not fit on the same page of the Order Paper!

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker—that was a lapse on my part.

[Danny Kruger]

All sorts of things go wrong when we mention Reform, so we had best leave that topic.

I pay tribute to the Conservative Front-Bench Members, who have put forward an important and principled statement of the declaration that our party will stand for. We support the decision of the British people to leave the European Union, repeated in multiple general elections. It is a great shame that we cannot hear the Labour party make the same pledge.

[Ben Coleman]

I am trying to understand if, at some point, we will hear anything from the Conservative party about what its Members think could be improved in the Brexit agreement that has been so bad for their party. We are talking about getting a better Brexit agreement than the one they negotiated. Are they saying that what they did was perfect, or can it be improved on? If it can, how? Everything else the hon. Gentleman has said has been negative.

[Danny Kruger]

There are two things. First, we could do better on Northern Ireland, but let us leave that whole topic for another day. Secondly, the Brexit agreement that we negotiated was absolutely right, but the problem is the EU and the fact that it is a protectionist bloc. We decided to leave because we believe in sovereignty and leaving a declining quarter of the world’s economy. The problem is the trade barriers that the EU erected unnecessarily and which are harmful to both parties. I will leave it there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Creasy]

I hate to warn the hon. Gentleman, but I have a horrible feeling that if he were to compare the speech he made today with many of those he made between 2017 and 2019, he might find that he would lose “Just a Minute” on the grounds of repetition. That is going backwards. This country deserves better.

Let me start with a clear statement of intent. Brexit has happened; we have left. I am not here to prosecute the argument to rejoin. We do not have time for that. What we need is a salvage operation, because of the damage that has been done, especially in a world with so much uncertainty, where tariffs are now part and parcel of the everyday conversation and the damage that is being done to our constituents.

We can fight many things in life, but geography really is not one of them, however hard some Members on the Conservative Benches try. We heard from the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) the continued myth that somehow the isolation to our status that Brexit has brought would bring us strength. The last 10 years—indeed, the last six months—have shown how clearly that is not the case. In fact, we are uniquely isolated and at risk as a nation. That is why what this Government are doing is absolutely right. They are getting on with signing trade deals, trying to sort out the damage that has been done and, indeed, looking for that hat-trick.

I have to say to Conservative Members that there is no conspiracy here. Those of us who were here in 2019 remember exactly the details of that deal and the fact that a five-year review process was written into it. What we are going to see next Monday is not some secret negotiation; it is part of the trade and co-operation process—[Interruption.] I hear Conservative Members chuntering. Hang on, I can see their tin foil hats! I beg them to look at the details of the agreement, which said clearly that there would be a renegotiation point, where we would review whether or not it was working. I am sorry that the shadow Minister is not in his place. He tried to claim affinity with Sam Beckett but frankly I suspect he is going to be more like Jim Trott from “The Vicar of Dibley”. He will say, “No, no, no, no, no, no, no”, and then have to say yes. The summit is not the end. It is the start of the process of reviewing the trade and co-operation agreement, and looking at what is in the best interests of this country.

Let me be clear: I am absolutely committed to the idea that there should be parliamentary scrutiny. My colleagues on the Front Bench will know that I have been concerned that the European Scrutiny Committee was deleted, because I think we should be able to discuss these matters. However, I think there probably ought to be a summit first in order for us to have something to discuss. I hope that will account for me putting in an advert for the Backbench Business debate that the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) and I were going to have after the summit on 22 May, so that we parliamentarians may properly examine what comes out of it. Sadly, he is not in his place, which is a shame because I know how strongly he feels about these things, and I am sure he would want to talk about the benefits of Brexit and other mythical creatures. The summit is the starting gun. It is not the final deal, and it is really important to look at it in that way.

This is the test for the motion today. Are the Opposition really telling us that the trade and co-operation agreement is perfection? Is there absolutely nothing in that agreement that they would not wish to amend, revise or refine? Is there absolutely nothing in what it has delivered in the last five years that they are troubled by? For example, there are 1.8 million fewer jobs in our economy because of the Tory hard Brexit, and the academics who have studied this recognise that that figure will rise to 3 million by 2035. Trade is down 27% with the European Union—a bloc that we do five times more trade with than we do with America. Over 16,000 businesses have given up trading with Europe all together, because the truth about Brexit is that it was just paperwork—reams and reams of it—and small businesses in this country have sadly had to up sticks.

I declare an interest as the chair of the Labour Movement for Europe. I am not standing here arguing to rejoin, but I am a red against red tape and what I see is the amount of paperwork—[Interruption.] I am loving the fact that Conservative Members are chuntering from a sedentary position, as if this was some sort of revelation. Perhaps they can borrow some tin foil from their fellow Members and talk about a conspiracy. They would do better to reflect on the impact of the border trading operating model—an entirely self-inflicted wound by the previous Government on British farmers and British food supply chains that pushed up inflation, because charging for pallets of food coming into the country created more and more paperwork. Unless Conservative Members are genuinely telling us that they think “chef’s kiss” for the trade and co-operation agreement, it is right for us to look at whether there are things we can do to deal with the problems it has created for our constituents—including the £6.95 billion of additional cost to households—and to account for some of the myths that have been created.

Again, the hon. Member for East Wiltshire—he will accuse me of being obsessed, but let us look at what he talked about—said that somehow being out of the European Union made our response to covid better. Well, he might want to talk to the UK covid inquiry, which found that it was the reverse. It found that our failure to prepare was increased by the fact that we were dealing with a no-deal Brexit; it harmed our covid response. He might even want to reflect on the words of the UK medicines regulator, which said we could have used the emergency processes to bring forward our own vaccine. I am sure that is what he was talking about.

The hon. Member also talked about Ukraine. He might want to reflect, as he thinks about the summit on Monday, on how hard it was for us to make the case about the importance of standing with Ukraine from outside of the room, and that those who were less convinced who were part of the European Union would have heard our message more clearly if we were inside the room, particularly when it came to gas imports. We championed Ukraine, but we had to shout from outside rather than being part of the conversations from the start.

This summit needs a strong agenda, and that is exactly what this Government are talking about. It is an agenda focused on fixing the problems that this trade and co-operation agreement has created. That is what the public want—they agree with us. They do not want us to spend five to 10 years on treaty renegotiation and the possibility of rejoining; they want us to salvage this country from the damage that Brexit has done. Two thirds of the country say that Brexit is bad for the cost of living, and 65% say that it has had a negative impact on the economy. Opposition Members might want to reflect on the fact that that is nearly twice the number of people who think that immigration is bad for our economy.

The British public are not daft; they are wise about what needs to happen next. They understand the value of a defence deal. They understand that, in a world with Putin at our doorstep, with the challenges we face and the uncertainty in other parts of the world, it is absolutely right and proper, and will complement NATO, to work more closely with our European counterparts, to increase investment in the UK defence industry and to collaborate on crime. Those of us who used to have constituents whose needs were served by the EU arrest warrants know the damage that the previous Government’s deal has done. Those of us who want to see us stepping up the way we collaborate on international aid know that we need to get round the table with our European counterparts. The best way to tackle those who might be stuck on a boat, fleeing persecution, is to try to stop the conflict at the source. That is what collaborating on international aid with Europe could offer.

The public understand the value of an SPS deal, which my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes) mentioned, and the value of the Pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention, which deals with the paperwork about rules of origin. Thanks to the Tory hard Brexit, those rules mean that every time a tomato is brought into this country to make a pizza in the Wirral, extra paperwork comes with it. The public would want us to look at the VAT rules, because small businesses are now struggling with 27 different VAT regimes. They would also want us to sort out the carbon border adjustment mechanism; that is how we save British steel, which will be affected if there is a divergence. We need to look at how the emissions trading schemes can be linked, and we can save British business £800 million in charges.

The public want us to look at mutual conformity assessments to try to reduce duplication. They want common sense on regulation. The previous Government tried to bring in separate regulatory regimes and, understandably, British business said, “That is twice the cost.” British businesses want to be able to sell to their neighbours; they do not want extra pieces of paperwork. The previous Government tried to make us have separate regulations on airline safety—as if an aeroplane taking off in London would need to follow a different set of regimes if it landed in Berlin. That is bonkers. Understandably, we walked back from it, and we should not go back to those kind of arguments just because those on the Conservative Benches have a blindness when it comes to Europe.

This Government have got their head on. They are looking at what they can do to help the chemicals industry and supply chains, and of course it is looking at what a deal on youth mobility might look like. This is a summit; it is about having the conversation, looking at the details and looking at how we can support apprenticeships through youth mobility. Clearly, youth mobility is not freedom of movement, otherwise I would have heard complaints from Opposition Members about the fact that we have freedom of movement deals with Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Uruguay—[Interruption.] I can see a Conservative Member saying, “Yes, indeed.” I presume they are going to call for the abolition of freedom of movement from Canada, then; that would be consistency.

We could also do more to help our creative services and financial services, and, yes, to resolve some of the tensions in Northern Ireland. Many of us feel deeply that the people of Northern Ireland have suffered the most as a result of the Tory hard Brexit. Yes, we could do a deal on fishing. We could acknowledge the fact that our fisheries industry felt sold out by the previous Government by supporting them to be sustainable. All those are issues that we can return to in that Back-Bench debate, but we cannot do that if we do not have the summit. We cannot walk into the summit saying, “No, no, no.” We need to walk in saying, “What gives? What are the opportunities here? How can we solve some of these challenges?”

Many, many years ago, one of my next-door constituency neighbours was Winston Churchill. We on the Labour Benches have become the defenders of his vision of ending conflict in Europe. Conservative Members spend all their time fighting with each other and fighting a ghost. We need to talk about the future. We need to get away from the fantasy that somehow Brexit will deliver and start getting back to the cost of living crisis in our communities and how we can help people.

[Danny Kruger]

rose—

[Ms Creasy]

I was going to sit down, I promise, but I cannot resist. I give way.

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Lady mentioned Churchill, so I cannot let her sit down yet. She talked about conflict within the Conservative party. Winston Churchill had a few battles in his own party, as she might recall—he was not averse to that. Sometimes one has to stand up for what is right, which is what Conservative Brexiteers did. Does she really think that Winston Churchill would have supported the EU in its current form? Does she really think that he would have supported what the ECHR has become? How can she possibly claim Winston Churchill for the politics that she stands for? Go on!

[Ms Creasy]

I think Winston Churchill would turn in his grave if he saw what the Conservative party and its libertarian wing have become, and how the proud defence of our ability to participate in international organisations, and to speak up for freedom, for shared interests and for the national interest, have been diminished as a result of the previous Government’s approach to Brexit, as well as that of Conservative Members today.

I will draw my remarks to a close. The world is changing. We are living in a world in which trade, security, co-operation and climate issues move at pace. Many of us could not have predicted—remember, it has been only 120 days since President Trump was elected—what would happen next. Never more have we needed good relationships with our neighbours. Monday is about being good neighbours. The world might be changing, but we have the same old Conservative party, on the same page as Reform—that is all they seem to care about. We care about the British interest. I look forward to hearing what comes out of the summit, and I look forward to the Back-Bench debate to discuss it. That really is taking back control.

Oral Answers to Questions

Danny Kruger Excerpts

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

It is totally unacceptable for anyone to feel intimidated or unsafe due to the actions of reckless and selfish individuals. Whatever the vehicle, our Bill gives police forces stronger powers to seize them immediately and put a stop to antisocial behaviour. That is our plan for change in action, making our streets and communities safer.

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)]

Q9.   Having had 14 years to get ready, Labour came into power with no plan to reform welfare. Now, in a panic because of their economic mismanagement, the Government are cutting benefits for disabled people without consulting them at all. It probably says in the Prime Minister’s folder that the High Court ruled that the Conservatives’ consultation was too short, but at least we consulted. The Government are not consulting at all. Will the Prime Minister explain why he is doing things to disabled people and not with them?

[The Prime Minister]

No, what it says in my folder is that the Conservatives had 14 years—[Interruption.] They did not need to consult; they just had to get on with it. They had a majority of 80 for their last five years of Government. They are now carping on about some of their ideas. They had 14 years and they did not implement a single one; they simply broke the system. They are in no place to lecture other people.

Covid-19 Inquiry

Danny Kruger Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Pat McFadden]

This is just module 1; there are other modules to be published, and I will update the House in some form when the Government respond to those. Of course, on top of that there are regular opportunities to question me and the Ministers in the Cabinet Office either at oral questions or in front of Select Committees.

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)]

I associate myself with the observations of the hon. Member for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer) and my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin). The fact is that we have an absolutely urgent imperative to address the dysfunctions of the British state that were exposed by the covid inquiry. I agree with everything that has been said about how bad things were in early 2020. I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman is saying about the importance of a stronger centre and a more accountable Cabinet Office— I think that is the right direction to be going in. However, does he also recognise that the parts of our society that did not fail in 2020 were the parts very far from Whitehall—local government, the private sector and our communities themselves? Does he agree that while the focus needs to be on improving Whitehall’s response, we also need to think about the resilience of local communities and ensuring that they can play their part in the next crisis?

[Pat McFadden]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. My experience in Wolverhampton, which I represent, was that the local authority did a great job of looking out for vulnerable people. An inquiry, perhaps by definition, places the emphasis on things that went wrong, but there was a great deal of experience during the pandemic that showed the best of society, with people looking out for one another and helping those who were vulnerable. We should draw on the things that went well, as well as those that went wrong.

Oral Answers to Questions

Danny Kruger Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd May 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Of course we want to deliver on the recommendations as quickly as practically possible. Indeed, our expectation is that we can do that before the end of the year. As I said, Sir Robert’s appointment will bring a wealth of experience; it is crucial that the chair has the knowledge, expertise and familiarity with the issues. His support for delivering the scheme and ensuring that compensation can be paid by the end of the year will be invaluable.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman talked about the community. Over the next few weeks, Sir Robert will seek views from the infected blood community specifically on the proposed scheme, to ensure the scheme will best serve those it is intended for. Our shared priority is delivering compensation to all those infected and affected with absolutely minimum delay, and begin bringing justice to all of those impacted.

[Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)]

Q3. In 1997, the public voted in what they were told would be a sort of continuity Conservative Government—the same policies, but with different faces. Instead what they got was record immigration, constitutional vandalism and a broken economy. Does the Prime Minister agree that, with the economy now roaring back to life under a Conservative Government, the last thing we need is a return to the failed Labour recipe of high taxes, open borders and employment laws that destroy jobs?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend gives a superb and passionate economic diagnosis. He is right: inflation is now back to normal, and, indeed, lower than that of France, Germany and the United States. Inflation is at its lowest level in years, our economy is growing faster and wages are rising, which is why we need to stick to the plan that is working. He is right to point out the risks of what the Labour party proposes: 70 new laws —70 new laws! Labour has caved in to its union paymasters, and what does that mean? It means that it will cost jobs and damage our economic recovery.

Procurement Bill [Lords]

Danny Kruger Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 13th June 2023 Commons Chamber

According to research from the British Chambers of Commerce—the Minister knows that I have cited these figures before—in 2016, 25% of public sector procurement spending was awarded directly to SMEs. By 2021, that had dropped to 21%. Neither of those figures suggests a healthy procurement environment for SMEs, but it is shocking that SMEs have faced more difficulty in getting a fair share of public contracts in the past five years, despite the strong rhetoric from the Government. One important barrier for SMEs is the constant delay they face in getting access to the money they are owed within an appropriate timeframe. For SMEs that see a significant amount of money coming in via a single contract or a small pool of contracts, such delays can be devastating to the balance sheet. They can lead to missed payments, job losses and even closures of our valuable SMEs.

[Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)]

I applaud what the hon. Member is saying about SMEs. She is absolutely right that it is important that we support the small business sector. However, she has tabled amendments that would favour the insourcing of public services. She seems to think that we should require the public sector to deliver public contracts, rather than SMEs. Which is it?

[Florence Eshalomi]

The hon. Member is absolutely right: those SMEs will work with local councils in a local area, and they know the local area. In some cases the contracts that are outsourced are not value for money. This is about ensuring that, in public contracts, public money is spent in the right way. If we are to lower the risks faced by SMEs seeking to enter the supply chain, it is vital that the measures in the Bill have an impact.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Meg Hillier]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Of course, if evaluation is built in from the beginning, the company that has been contracted to do the work would be required to collect data. They will say that that involves more cost but, over time, it would wash out. We need a better standard of data collection on all sorts of issues.

Take the example of a contractor that was asked to run a prison. The Government provided data on the prison’s maintenance, but the data was not right as it did not count the number of windows and toilets, and so on, that needed to be fixed, so the company had to come in and count them. In that case, the company had not banked on prisoners breaking more windows than the average in other buildings. There is lots of data, and we keep pushing for it to be collected, and that data could be built into evaluations.

The hon. Gentleman is bang on about making sure we do not send good money after bad. If something is not working, we need the evidence and the political courage, sometimes, to end the contract. We need to make sure that the people delivering a contract are clear that they are delivering the contract’s aims. Evaluation should have the impact of tightening procurement, tightening the management of contracts by the civil service and sharpening up those who bid for contracts to do a better job and to be proud of that job, in the knowledge that doing a good job may well mean that the contract is extended, but not if they do not do a good job. We should also reward good behaviour. I am keen to hear what the Minister has to say about that.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) tabled amendments that would ensure that organisations involved in nefarious activities are excluded from public procurement. It is extraordinary that companies that are making money in nefarious ways can bolster their activity and give themselves credibility through public procurement. Others have talked a lot about the issues around China, so I will not go into that much more. My right hon. Friend has a strong reputation in this area, and her amendments speak for themselves.

We do not want to miss this opportunity. I recognise that not everything in procurement is about legislation. It would give me some comfort, as Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, if the Minister showed that that is being thought about a bit more deeply across Whitehall.

[Danny Kruger]

This has been a very interesting debate, veering from grand geopolitics to the sourcing of public services and paperclips. All of this is, in a sense, the responsibility of an independent country, so the debate is one benefit of Brexit, for which I am sure we are all very grateful.

I am pleased with the Bill and the Government amendments. I think of it as the patriotic Procurement Bill, which is exactly what we need. I particularly welcome the explicit commitment to national security that has been added to the Bill, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) and for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), for their work and their contributions today. I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) for his tremendous speech about the dangers we face from a more hostile China.

In the Government amendments, and in Government policy in general, we see a necessary new realism in UK policy. Security is the new watchword of our times, and to me it means much more than defence against hostile states. We face all sorts of other threats to our security, including, as my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight mentioned, our extreme dependence on supply chains around the world, not only but particularly those in hostile states.

Conservative Members tend to regard “protecting” and “subsidising” domestic industry as dirty words and unorthodox policies. Nevertheless, we see around the world a growing tide of tariff barriers and domestic subsidies. Our great friends in the United States have committed to spending $500 billion on domestic manufacturers, particularly to wean themselves off Chinese imports. I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitments this week to a new US-UK economic collaboration arrangement to secure our common interests and to ensure that we have safe supply chains. We will need to rely more on our allies in future.

As we move from a just-in-time procurement model, we need to recognise, particularly on this side of the House, the role of Government in ensuring economic security. The fact is that £300 billion a year makes the Government the biggest player in the UK economy. As we have heard today, and I pay tribute to the speeches made by Opposition Members, the Government are often not very good at procurement and spending public money for public goods. We could go into the sources and origins of that, but we should recognise that since the late 1990s, and under the Blair and Brown Governments in particular, the model of new public management has created a new doctrine of how Government money should be spent on private sector providers. The principle of introducing internal markets—the purchaser-provider split—was an attempt to ensure greater efficiency, greater value for money and greater responsiveness to the users of public services, and it engendered all sorts of difficulties, too. The hon. Members for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) and for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) listed some of them, and I recognise them from my previous work. Providers have to jump through really bureaucratic processes.

There is a concentration of big suppliers. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green has done a lot of good work, although he did not speak about it today, on the importance of SME procurement. Large charities in particular can game the system, in the way that large companies can, to secure Government contracts. The Government often do not buy the best; they buy the service that gives commissioners the least risk. Those suppliers often run rings around Government. In the way services are designed and delivered, we see cost deferrals, with payment pushed back beyond the budget cycle; cost shunting, with different parts of the public sector having to carry the cost for a bad contract; the creaming of the high-value, low-cost clients or services; and the parking of high-cost, low-value services. So the providers, whether they are charitable or commercial, game the system. We see that all time, so all this needs improvement and this Bill takes important steps towards ensuring that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I am fascinated by the speech my hon. Friend is making, because he is right in one sense about this. We did a report at the Centre for Social Justice about four or five years ago where we looked at productivity. So often we make international comparisons, but the whole figure for productivity contains that which a country wants to put into it. For example, France does not put health or education into its productivity measures. Health and education have shocking productivity outcomes in terms of cost, which means that France is able to declare itself as having a higher level of productivity. London and the south-east have the highest productivity in Europe, but the real story is that the rest of the UK does not meet the average for the whole of the Europe, which tells us what our problem really is.

[Danny Kruger]

My right hon. Friend makes important points, and I recognise the difficulty of comparing our productivity figures with those of other countries. The comparison I am making is with our own recent history, but he is absolutely right in what he says. Indeed, the point about what is measured matters enormously. In our debates, we often make the mistake of thinking that the only things that matter are those that can be easily quantified. That is a great challenge we face, particularly in the social sector.

The Government are rightly committed to improving the efficiency and productivity of the public services—I absolutely support them on that—but we face another great challenge that does not get enough of a mention: the need to reduce demand on the system as a whole. We are spending so much not just because we are inefficient, but because the demand on the system is so high. I do not need to run through all the details of the enormous budgets we spend on social breakdowns and the consequences of social problems that we should have averted, in criminal justice, in the health budget, in what is called “social protection”. Some £150 billion is categorised under “social protection” in the public finances—not pensions, but paying for people who have tough lives. We should be seeking to reduce the cost of those budgets, because each one of those costs represents, in a sense, people in trouble. Both for financial and social reasons, we should be trying to reduce that expenditure.

How do we do that? We need social reform. I am not going to bore the House with long thoughts on that, but we need public sector reform, as has been mentioned a bit today, and that includes procurement reform. I acknowledge what Labour is suggesting in some of its amendments and in some of the speeches we have heard: an objection to the whole model of outsourcing. I recognise the objections to some of the failures of public service management—new public management—over the past generation, and some of the challenges of outsourcing and of competition in the public sector or for public services. However, I do not think insourcing everything is the answer. Reverting to a pre-1990 model of everything being delivered by the central state, as one of the amendments and Unison are championing, is not the right model. We need a better model of outsourcing that relies much more on civil society and, in particular, on the local, community-based services in which the UK is so rich and which do such a great job. We need to be able to measure their value properly and commission their services effectively. That is what this Bill aims to do.

I declare an interest, in that I set up and ran for many years projects working in prisons and with youth services. I have personal acquaintance with the challenge of EU procurement, not only social fund commissioning, but central and local government contracts. None of this is easy and I am familiar with all of that. I am familiar with the frustrations of getting on the frameworks; expressing interest; bidding through tenders; and being treated as bid candy on a long contract. I am also familiar with going through a pointless competition process where there is only one obvious provider—the one that helped to design the service—which still has to jump through loads of competitive hoops only for some other random provider to come in and swipe the contract; I speak bitterly from experience. The challenges that small social enterprises face are significant.

The difference between procurement and commissioning is not often acknowledged. We often have procurement departments doing work that is too complicated for them on their own. We need to have proper commissioning where people who are paying for a service work collaboratively with providers, stakeholders, service users and other parts of the system. Everybody needs to bring their assets, resources, skills and experience to co-design the service that is needed locally. The Bill brings us much closer to that model. I greatly welcome the measures that have been included, especially around the simplification of tendering. The single portal is an important development and it is good for transparency as well. The Tell Us Once registration is essential, as is the help that will be given to SMEs and social enterprises, including the active reduction in the barriers to tendering, lower reporting requirements and so on.

Most of all there is the shift from the most economically advantageous regime to the most advantageous regime. That small excision of the word “economically” is an important recognition of the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) was just making about the need to go beyond a purely commercial estimation of the value of social projects. I would go further. In 2020, I wrote a report for the Government who were trying to maximise and sustain the enormous contributions that communities were making during the first lockdown. I suggested that we recognise and declare that the whole of Government commissioning—the whole of public service spending—is to deliver social value for the public. Essentially, that is what we all believe and it should be stated much more explicitly in my view. I just bring the House’s attention back to the Conservative Government’s Social Value Act 2012, which gets those principles right.

I recognise that we need to take enormous steps forward. I honour what the Government have been doing around national security. I also honour the steps that have been taken to ensure greater opportunities for SMEs and social enterprises, and I commend the Bill to the House.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I wish to associate myself with the remarks made by hon. and right hon. Members across the House about the dangers of sourcing from high-risk countries and parts of countries and those implicated in serious human rights abuses. The appalling persecution of the Uyghurs in Xinjiang is a very powerful case in point that has been echoed by many Members around the House, and I agree very strongly with that.

I rise to speak to amendment 60 and new clause 17. I welcome the provisions in the Bill that aim to help small and medium-sized enterprises to access public contracts. SMEs are often best placed to meet the needs of the communities in which they operate, providing numerous social and economic benefits. Those benefits, often referred to as a social value, cannot simply be reduced to a tick-box exercise. Nor can we allow social value to amount only to crumbs of compensation from corporate giants, while they extract wealth from our communities. Wider economic, social and environmental priorities need to be built in from the start of every procurement process.

The UK spends about £300 billion a year on public procurement. We could question whether that is a good thing. That has already been hinted at—whether some of these services at least would be better off delivered in-house by public bodies themselves rather than via contracts. However, this is probably not the place to go into that debate. I want to focus on the need to use that procurement spend as a force for good—to keep wealth in local economies, to ensure that public money goes to responsible companies and not those that exploit people and nature, and to help us meet our climate goals and to preserve a liveable future for all of us. I want to see values, not just value, at the heart of the public procurement process in public life.

That brings me to amendment 60 on the national procurement policy statement, which sets out the strategic objectives that the Government want public procurement to achieve. The amendment would require the Government to assess and report on the impact of the national procurement policy statement on meeting environmental and climate targets and to set out any steps that they intend to take to meet them.

Thanks to the efforts of climate campaigners across the country, we are now seeing the net zero goal and the need for climate action acknowledged in strategies and policy statements across the public sector. But these acknowledgements remain meaningless unless we assess the real world impact of those statements. Are our plans to reduce emissions actually being implemented and are they working? The amendment would signal to contracting authorities and businesses that the Government are serious about aligning procurement with climate and environmental goals. It would also enable Government to see where policy might need to be strengthened if it is not having the intended impact.

New clause 17 would require public contracts that include the supply of food to be aligned with nutritional guidelines and to specify options suitable for a plant-based diet. We know that animal agriculture is one of the largest contributors to global heating and biodiversity loss, representing around 15% of all greenhouse gas emissions according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation. More and more people are choosing to move to more plant-based eating and almost one quarter of people in Britain now follow a mainly or entirely meat-free diet.

The 2022 progress report to Parliament by the Climate Change Committee urges the Government not to ignore the role of diet and notes:

“Government can influence diet shifts, through mandating plant-based options in public settings”.

My amendment would require public contracts for the supply of food to be in line with the Eatwell Guide, which drew inspiration from the nutritional guidance of what was then Public Health England, developed in conjunction with the devolved nations. Analysis by the Carbon Trust found that, thanks to lower consumption of meat, dairy and sugary foods, the environmental footprint of the Eatwell diet is around one third lower than the current national diet.

In settings such as hospitals and schools, where good nutrition can make all the difference, our public sector should lead the way by offering nutritious and sustainable food. That is too often overridden by a narrow notion of value for money, resulting in vulnerable people being given food that does not meet nutritional guidelines. As we all remember, during the pandemic the Government were forced to U-turn on school meal vouchers after widespread outrage at the poor quality and quantity of food being distributed to families. That was not just one isolated failure; it was symptomatic of a political culture that thinks we can package up children’s nutrition, health or any public service and hand it over to whichever corporate giant says it will do it most cheaply. That is the culture that has to change.

Last year the all-party parliamentary group on the green new deal, which I co-chair, produced a report setting out how local community-based solutions are key to climate action. As part of that inquiry we heard from the Sustainable Food Places network, as well as from community farms and kitchens. A key recommendation that came up again and again was to use the procurement system to support more local food and plant-based diets.

The Government’s own food strategy proposes a target of at least 50% of food spend to be on food produced locally or to high environmental standards, a move I certainly applaud. However, nine months on from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs consultation, we are still awaiting the Government’s response.

Pioneering local authorities and public bodies are leading the way, and my constituency has had some notable successes. In 2020, Brighton received the first-ever Sustainable Food Places gold award. It has brought in improved standards for procurement as part of a wider campaign to get more people eating more vegetables and its school food supplier meets the Food for Life gold standard for championing healthy, local, climate-friendly food.

A more joined-up approach to food, climate and nature and a real commitment to supporting local businesses and community organisations would have huge benefits for our health and our local economies. In addition to the provisions in this new clause, I would therefore hope to see much more support for public bodies that want to put social value at the heart of procurement, to help them to find out how best to get sustainable food from local producers into public sector canteens.

Ministerial Code: Investigation of Potential Breach

Danny Kruger Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Quin]

The British people will know that the Prime Minister will act in a professional and proper manner. He always does, and he is doing so in these circumstances. I believe that it is not totally unknown for the Labour party to have issues of a disciplinary nature that it needs to look at, and I dare say that it has processes. We too have processes, and the Prime Minister will make certain, having gathered the information, that he does next what he feels is right.

[Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)]

My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker) makes the right point about the BBC’s political editor, but here we have 50 or so Opposition Members choosing to spend their time debating this question. Does my right hon. Friend think—[Interruption.] We are here because we have been called out in defence of the Government. Does the Minister think that their constituents will be proud of the way their representatives are using their time?

[Jeremy Quin]

I have a long memory, and I recall a little while ago an urgent question being asked by a Member of the House, and the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) coming here to defend the Labour party’s actions on, among other things, the matter of Sue Gray and an appointment. I remember her saying what a complete waste of time it was for this Parliament that we were spending time and wasting our time on these issues. My hon. Friend raises a pertinent point.

Papers Relating to the Home Secretary

Danny Kruger Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)]

I am afraid that we just have to ignore the shameless politics of this motion. It is, of course, the job of the Opposition to bring this sort of motion before the House. There may come a day—a very distant day—when we sit on the Opposition Benches and make similar attacks on the Government. If the Labour party is the Government, we will have plenty of material to work with based on its last stint in office. There will be new names to add to the illustrious roster of Hinduja, Ecclestone, Mittal and so on, and perhaps even some old names will be coming back. I have the fortune of representing the noble Lord Mandelson as a constituent. I dare say that he will be back on the Front Bench of the Labour party if it is ever back in power and he, no doubt, will be resigning two or three times during his next stint in office. Our Home Secretary has only ever had to resign once, compared with him.

We should not complain, even if it is very thin stuff that Labour Members are bringing. What is going on here? Is it the context or the subtext of this motion? Labour is not attacking the Home Secretary because she shared a policy document with a fellow Privy Counsellor and a former security Minister. The document itself contained no security information. In fact, all the information in the document was already in the public domain. There was no national security breach and no private data involved. That is not the purpose of their attack. The attack is because of her approach to immigration, and I suggest that that is not a subject for this sort of political knockabout, because the topic matters to us all. Despite the knockabout, I think both sides have a legitimate concern and legitimate points to make in this debate, and deep down we all want the same thing.

It is easy to caricature one another’s positions: the Opposition say we are heartless; we say they are naive. They say we are against refugees altogether; we say they want open borders—I said that last week, and it is true of some of them, but let me be fair to the majority of our opponents and try to represent their view fairly. They want us to play our part as a country—a leading part, given our history—in the management of the great people movements of the world. They want our attitude as a country to those people huddled in boats in the English channel to be one of compassion. They want our responsibility—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying—

[Danny Kruger]

I am straying, Madam Deputy Speaker—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman needs to sit down when I am standing. Thank you. He is straying away from the terms of the motion, and he should be quite careful what he says about other Members of the House.

[Danny Kruger]

That is a fair point, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank you for that guidance. I do not have much more to say, then, because the topic of the debate should have been the question of how we manage migration—that is the real purpose of the Opposition’s attacks on the Home Secretary.

It is right that we on the Government side represent citizens who believe strongly in the importance of protecting our borders against illegal migration. It is preposterous that the Opposition think the Government should reveal legal advice. They cannot attack the Home Secretary for her plans on migration, because those plans are popular and right, so they attack her. I wish they would recognise that we all want a humane asylum system and secure borders; they could even work with us to secure that.

Tributes to Her Late Majesty The Queen

Danny Kruger Excerpts

Friday 9th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)]

It is an honour to follow such an inspiring speech by the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans). I speak on my behalf and that of my constituents in Devizes, particularly the many members—serving and former—of Her Majesty’s armed forces, who have served under her colours and sworn their oath to her.

President de Gaulle said that he had

“a certain idea of France”.

We have no need for such abstractions. We do not need an idea of the United Kingdom; we have had, for 70 years, an actual person who represented the best of our country and its character. Others have spoken of the character of the late Queen and, not knowing her, I cannot add anything to that. Those primary school visits are an absolute agony for me—I go from one classroom to another disappointing the children because I have not met the Queen. However, I want to talk briefly about what she stood for.

Philip Larkin’s poem has been quoted often today, with its perfect line, “She did not change”—she did not change, even as we did. As we heard, she presided over the most extraordinary period of change, yet she was emphatically not a relic of the past. We loved and valued her because she was a conduit of something precious, from the present to the future.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) said that we could find what we want in the Queen, whether we are a modernist or a traditionalist. We find both in her, of course. That is the real value of tradition, and not because it fossilises the past. A real traditionalist, as someone said, is someone who tends the flame of their culture, not someone who worships its ashes. Those of us with conservative instincts need to remember that.

The Queen was a great futurist, as was the Duke of Edinburgh. As my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Sir Gary Streeter) said—others have made the same point—if modern Britain was founded on the rock of Queen Elizabeth, that is because her life was founded on the rock of ages, on her Christian faith. I read today that as the country became more secular in recent decades, she became more publicly religious. It is worth noting that while she dedicated her long life to the service of the people, she held herself accountable not to us, but to a higher power. This was the source of her joy and her goodness.

My sympathy goes to her family, her friends and her household in their grief, and I give my thanks to her. She is doing in death what she did in life: bringing us together, making us smile, reminding us of the things that really matter, and making us proud of our country and grateful for her example and her service. May she rest in peace.

Bill of Rights

Danny Kruger Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd June 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I think many people, but I suspect particularly my hon. Friend’s constituents, will think the real threat to human rights is allowing, and not cracking down on, this trade in human misery. She asked about how we will reform the relationship with the Strasbourg Court. First, it will be by freeing the UK courts to diverge from Strasbourg case law, and being clear that they do not need to take it into account. Secondly, it will be by making sure, in the way I have already articulated, that there is the equivalent of a democratic shield, as we relied on in relation to prisoner voting, but reinforced and made clearer, so that when it comes to the shifting goalposts, whether under judicial interpretation at home or abroad, Parliament has the last word. Finally, it will be in relation to rule 39 interim orders, and she will find all those expressly and explicitly addressed in the Bill of Rights.

[Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)]

There has been much talk of Winston Churchill and the authorship of the original convention by British Conservative judges. The fact is that the text of the original convention is absolutely fine, and it is the application and extension of the convention’s original meaning by Strasbourg judges over the decades since that is the problem. I therefore very much welcome the commitment to raise the bar for article 8 judgments.

I also welcome the commitment to give UK judges the right to diverge from Strasbourg case law. My concern, however, is that some UK judges do not want to diverge from Strasbourg case law. In fact, in some cases they want to go further; I think of Baroness Hale, of blessed memory to Members here. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that we will genuinely be free of Strasbourg case law, and is it worth thinking about strengthening the obligation on judges to disregard Strasbourg cases that do not apply in our context?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

First, if my hon. Friend reads clause 3 of the Bill of Rights, I think he will find that all his concerns are addressed squarely and fully; I urge him to have a look and come back to me.

My hon. Friend made another important point about people talking as if the European convention was the exclusive authorship of Churchill and the United Kingdom. That is a perverse and neo-imperial reading of history that is totally at odds with the way in which the European convention was negotiated, which was by a mixture of European countries, including the UK—we were centrally involved—and other countries with a civil law background. The convention reflects a mix of those traditions. As a result, it is unobjectionable, but the challenge has come in relation to interpretation and application. My hon. Friend’s points are valid, but the idea that the convention was a British creation is almost neo-imperial myth making.