Papers Relating to the Home Secretary

Debate between Danny Kruger and Rosie Winterton

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.

Points of Order

Debate between Danny Kruger and Rosie Winterton

Tuesday 17th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I have not had any indication and do not know anything about whether the Government wish to make a statement on this subject, but I am confident that Ministers on the Front Bench will have heard the points he has made and I am sure they will be fed back through the appropriate channels.

[Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Today’s Daily Mail carries a story that Dignity in Dying, the campaign group that wants to bring assisted suicide to this country, has been boasting to its donors that it can buy a debate in this place. It suggests that for £40,000 it can secure the 100,000 signatures that are required for a petition to get a debate on the Floor of the House. Can you advise me as to how we can ensure that this bought debate does not take place and how we can protect the petitions system from this kind of abuse?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. Obviously, people are entitled to campaign for support for their point of view, and petitions are a recognised campaigning tool. The point he raises is an important one. Obviously, it is the Petitions Committee’s role to consider petitions for debate, and I suggest that he may wish to raise this particular matter with it.

Bill Presented

Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Secretary Brandon Lewis, supported by the Prime Minister, Secretary Dominic Raab, Secretary Ben Wallace, Secretary Alister Jack, Secretary Simon Hart, the Attorney General, Conor Burns, David T. C. Davies, Leo Docherty and Iain Stewart, presented a Bill to address the legacy of the Northern Ireland Troubles and promote reconciliation by establishing an Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery, limiting criminal investigations, legal proceedings, inquests and police complaints, extending the prisoner release scheme in the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, and providing for experiences to be recorded and preserved and for events to be studied and memorialised.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 10) with explanatory notes (Bill 10-EN).

Supporting Small Business

Debate between Danny Kruger and Rosie Winterton

Tuesday 19th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is the potential for a three-level look at this, as we have the high street, out-of-town shopping and online businesses? There are three different categories. My constituency has out-of-town shopping centres that are doing very well, thank you, but the high streets are in a very difficult place. To go back to his earlier point, may I remind him that the hope that railway stations—whether Devizes or Ferryhill—can give to local communities in developing—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman has only just arrived and making a long intervention, having only just got here, is just taking up the time of others.

[Danny Kruger]

I thank my hon. Friend for the intervention and he is absolutely right in what he says. Of course, the challenge is to get a flexible system that recognises the diversity of our business system, which is why an overall review of business rates is better than some blanket abolition.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Court Bill

Debate between Danny Kruger and Rosie Winterton

Report stage
Monday 5th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Could the last two speakers stick to four minutes?

[Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will speak quickly about new clauses 42 and 55, which concern the regulation of abortion.

New clause 42, tabled by the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq), proposes the creation of censorship zones around abortion clinics. The intention behind it is to stop the harassment of women seeking abortion.

We already have laws against harassment which can be, and are, applied. We also already have public order laws that allow councils to impose restrictions regarding specific clinics that are experiencing any real public order difficulties, so the activity that the new clause proposes to criminalise is peaceful, passive, non-obstructive activity—less disruptive than the sort of protests that Opposition Members are so busy trying to defend today. I recognise the good faith behind the new clause, but in practice it is an attempt to criminalise the expression of an opinion. I cite the campaigner Peter Tatchell, who said today that it is an

“unjustifiable restriction on the right to free expression.”

I urge the House to vote it down.

New clause 55, tabled by the right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), would not criminalise anything; it would decriminalise something, namely abortion itself up to term. It would effectively legalise abortion on demand up to birth. She is keen that we pay attention to the text of her new clause, so I shall quote from it:

“No offence is committed…by…a woman who terminates her own pregnancy or who assists in or consents to such termination”.

The effect would be to legalise or to decriminalise abortion up to birth.

I am not arguing that the new clause is an attempt to deregulate abortion, although I believe that that might be the effect; my objection is to the principle. It says a very, very terrible thing about the value that we place on an unborn life if we simply say that it should be determined by whether or not the mother would like to keep it—by whether that baby is wanted or not. Let us think of that in terms of other lives—a newborn child, a disabled person or a vulnerable elderly person: when their family is unable to look after them, the community and the state step in. We should apply that principle in the case of a child in the womb, especially one that is still viable and could live outside the womb. I urge the House not to support new clause 55.