Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill

Danny Kruger Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 21st October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

My hon. Friend is pithier than I am. Yes, this is about elected office. I will make a little progress, if right hon. and hon. Members do not mind.

Let me take you back to the reformation, Madam Deputy Speaker. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Southall said, until the mid-19th century, there were considerably more restrictions on Catholics and Jews, including an effective prohibition on becoming a Member of Parliament. The Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 and the Jews Relief Act 1858 removed many but not all of these legal barriers to Roman Catholic and Jewish participation in public life. This included permitting people of those faiths to become MPs and to serve in various civil and military offices, but the legislation retained certain exceptions, which this Bill seeks to address.

Under section 18 of the 1829 Act and section 4 of the 1858 Act, individuals professing the Catholic or Jewish faiths are restricted from giving advice to the sovereign in relation to Church appointments. The penalty for breaching these restrictions is being prevented from holding a civil or military office under the Crown, which includes serving as Prime Minister.

Until now there has never been a Prime Minister professing either the Roman Catholic or Jewish faith while in office. Following the appointment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) as Prime Minister in July, these 19th-century legal restrictions are now having a practical effect for the first time. To ensure that Church appointments can continue smoothly, the Prime Minister has temporarily transferred his responsibilities for advising the sovereign on Church appointments to the Lord Chancellor. But it would not be right to continue these arrangements indefinitely. I am sure that the whole House will agree with me that, in the 21st century, one’s faith should not be a barrier to carrying out any of the duties of high office.

Removing these restrictions from the statute book is the right thing to do. Moreover, it is important to uphold one of our core constitutional principles that the Prime Minister is the sovereign’s principal adviser and should be able to advise on Church appointments just like his predecessors.

This Bill resolves a live, practical issue and removes an outdated restriction that has no place in our modern parliamentary democracy. With hon. Members’ support, I hope that it will not detain the House for long.

I understand that some Members might raise questions about why non-Anglican Prime Ministers or Ministers should be able to advise the sovereign on appointments to a Church whose faith or denomination they do not share. However, the Government firmly reject that view. The legal restrictions that we are seeking to repeal only apply to individuals professing the Roman Catholic or Jewish faiths. They do not apply to people of other faiths, other Christian denominations or no faith at all. That is why former Prime Ministers Rishi Sunak, a professed Hindu, and Sir Keir Starmer, a professed atheist, as well as many other non-Anglican Prime Ministers in the 20th century were able to advise the sovereign on Church appointments without risking disbarment from office.

While the Church of England is the established Church, one of our country’s great strengths is that it is made up of people of different faiths and backgrounds, who should all enjoy equal treatment under our laws. To suggest that a Minister must personally share the faith of the established Church in order to convey its advice would be to misunderstand the constitutional role of the Crown’s principal adviser.

As a modern parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy, the King is the Head of State and acts on the advice of his Ministers, who are accountable to the electorate and to this place. It is therefore right that the Prime Minister, regardless of his religious beliefs, is able to advise the King on Church appointments.

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)]

I support the principle of the Bill and obviously will not oppose it. May I ask the Minister to unpack the point he just made about the role of the Prime Minister in conveying the advice of the Church on appointments? That is exactly how it works at the moment. As the Minister said, the Prime Minister is the principal adviser to the sovereign, and ultimately it is the sovereign who has authority to make episcopal appointments. Does he agree that the Prime Minister has a function to play in the advice given to the sovereign, or does he think this is purely a procedural matter in which the Prime Minister is simply transmitting advice that he receives from the Church hierarchy?

[Mr Falconer]

The point I was seeking to cover is that it is an important constitutional principle that the Prime Minister is the principal adviser to the sovereign, including in his role as the head of the established Church. Clearly, in practice—I think this is well known to the House—the Prime Minister does not take an active role in selecting members of the clergy, but that does not mean that it is wise to continue with this discrimination, in particular against Catholics and Jews.

Clause 1 makes provision to repeal sections 17 and 18 of the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 and to repeal the Jews Relief Act 1858 in its entirety, lifting all statutory restrictions on Ministers advising on or making Church appointments. Crucially, the Bill treats and removes restrictions on Roman Catholic and Jewish individuals in exactly the same way, ensuring complete parity and equal treatment between both faiths.

The clause also removes outdated restrictions on making Church appointments, referring to rights of patronage such as those held by the Lord Chancellor to directly nominate vicars to parish benefices. While those provisions have been partially repealed and are generally no longer of any practical effect, completely repealing them removes any lingering legal uncertainty.

Clause 2 sets out the UK-wide territorial extent and provides for commencement immediately on Royal Assent.

Members may recall that last year we passed a similar piece of legislation: the Church of Scotland (Lord High Commissioner) Act 2025. The Government’s approach is both principled and pragmatic. We address archaic, centuries-old statutory restrictions such as these as and when they have a live practical impact on public life. Last year, we acted to facilitate the historic appointment of Lady Angiolini—a practising Catholic—to the office of Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. We are bringing forward this Bill now because these 19th-century provisions are having an impact on ministerial advice for the first time.

No doubt, there may be questions about whether we will need a third Bill to address further historical religious restrictions. Let me reassure hon. Members that, with the passage of this Bill, the job is complete. Following this legislation, I assure the House that there will be no remaining religious restrictions affecting Ministers and other individuals appointed by the Crown, and we are confident that no further such action will ever be required.

There we are: a short, simple and straightforward Bill. While it will take up only a few lines of our statute book, this legislation corrects an archaic historical wrong and ensures that our constitutional arrangements reflect a modern, equal society where no Prime Minister, regardless of his religious beliefs, is restricted from being able to advise the sovereign. I hope that the Bill will receive support from all sides. In that spirit, I commend it to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)]

As an Anglican, there is a little bit of me that would always like to see an Anglican as Prime Minister, but I recognise that that is not always desirable or possible. In fact, despite the historical measures relating to Catholic emancipation that we have discussed today, of course Roman Catholicism never did go away. Catholics practised their faith in private, often in fear of their life. The secret of the success of the Church of England is that it is the original broad church. Even within the Anglican communion, there are people who hold a whole variety of views, and allowing our Prime Minister, a Roman Catholic, to perform his constitutional function of advising the monarchy is very much in keeping with that tradition.

A week last Sunday, I attended the High Sheriff’s legal service at Derby cathedral. It was for Dr Syed Yusuf Iftikhar, an NHS consultant who came from Pakistan and served for over 40 years in the NHS. It brought together people from different faith communities, and was led by the Dean of Derby, the Very Rev. Peter Robinson, but we had representatives from the Muslim, Sikh and Hindu faiths. That is the Church of England at its best, particularly at a time when we see division in our society. We have talked about antisemitism today, but recently we have unfortunately seen racist aspects to our political parties here. The Church of England has an excellent role to play in bringing communities together, and many of us will see that on Remembrance Sunday next month.

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Gentleman is making an important speech. Does he agree with me that the value of this Bill is that it could strengthen the Church of England and reconnect it with the political community of which it is properly a part? Does he agree with me that, as I said when I intervened on the Minister, it is not right to leave the appointment of bishops purely to the bureaucrats at Church House and committees there, and that it is a proper subject for politics? We have heard the suggestion that this is a second-order priority, and I recognise that there are more pressing concerns for the country, but this stuff matters—Gladstone thought the most important part of his job as Prime Minister was appointing bishops. My concern about the debate so far is that the Bill has been interpreted as some great step of progressive modernisation that clearly ends with the exclusion of Christianity from political life altogether. Does he agree that what we actually we need to do is strengthen the role of the Church of England in the political community and remind the Prime Minister of this very important part of his or her job?

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

I am sorry to jump up again, but I want to challenge the right hon. Gentleman. That was no doubt the case in the 19th century, but if he reads the brilliant book by Mark Vickers called “God In Number 10”, which is a history of 20th century Prime Ministers from Balfour to Blair, he will see that it is an opposite story. The book is a remarkable account of how very different Prime Ministers all took their responsibilities seriously, as the right hon. Gentleman said, right up to John Major. They honoured the fact that different dioceses had different traditions, and they tried to ensure that there was ecumenical balance in the Church of England. I do not think it is beyond a Prime Minister of any party to take their job seriously, think about the right balance of the Church of England and maintain the broad church. What we do not want bureaucrats in the Church of England appointing each other, which is what we have at the moment—that is why they are all left wing. Surely the right hon. Gentleman would acknowledge that we need a genuinely broad church that includes people from different political traditions.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

That is a very interesting point of view from our Reform colleague. It is interesting to think that at some future date the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) might appoint bishops, but we will see—it may or may not happen.

Rejoining the EU

Danny Kruger Excerpts

Monday 12th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)]

As ever, it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy). I congratulate the petitioners, but I am afraid the heart sinks in this debate. I think it took less than three minutes before we heard about the 350 million quid on the side of the bus, which is one of the great canards. Of course, that was paid; one of the few things that Theresa May actually did for Brexit was make that very significant increase in the NHS budget. We have heard about the migrant return scheme under the EU, which was never used and never actually returned any migrants.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Danny Kruger]

I am just going to keep going. I do not think we are actually having a debate; we are just exchanging our speeches, so I will not give way.

I sympathise with the points we have heard, such as those made about zoos, Spanish delis or Freddy and his band. It is clearly very frustrating how the EU has treated its close friend, the UK, after Brexit, and that has had very unfortunate consequences for those businesses.

We need to look at this issue from a much bigger perspective, and here the facts are much more contested about the overall benefits and costs of Brexit. When we talk about these always cited statistics on the decline in GDP since 2026, we are comparing an unknowable counterfactual with what has actually happened in the real European Union and the UK. Here, as the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) said, the UK has done better than our European competitors.

Let us just be straightforward about this: the whole of Europe, including the United Kingdom, has suffered economically over the last decade. Different sectors have prospered and suffered in different ways. Although we have not suffered in services exports, we have suffered in goods exports, and I recognise that. However, those goods losses overlap with stupid political choices made by our sovereign United Kingdom, particularly in respect of energy policy.

Where we have also suffered and struggled is where our regulations have remained aligned with the EU. The fact is that European regulations have caused Europe to decline, and where we have also declined, it is because we have remained aligned with them. Mario Draghi, the former Italian Prime Minister and chairman of the European Central Bank, wrote a brilliant report that conclusively demonstrated how much it is the EU itself that holds back European growth, and why it is so regrettable that Britain has remained aligned in so many sectors.

Let me quickly state what actually works for prosperity and what drives economic growth. Last year’s Nobel prize winners won for their brilliant work demonstrating why there has been sustained growth in the world for the last 200 years. It is not because of market share or market access, as valuable as that is; it is because of innovation and technology. It is because of a regulatory system, largely derived from the United Kingdom, that enables businesses to prosper.

The key aspects of that system are light-touch regulation and legal certainty, which are features of common law and the United Kingdom’s economy. Legal systems matter, and the civil law system that the EU operates and applied to the UK is different, as it involves heavy regulation and legal uncertainty. Where we have remained constrained by EU law, such as in electric or self-driving cars, we do just as badly as the EU. However, where we have diverged—where we have used our Brexit freedoms—that is where we are prospering. Of course, AI technology is the key evidence of that.

[Ms Creasy]

Are the benefits in the room with us?

[Danny Kruger]

The AI that the hon. Lady used to write her speech is the benefit of Brexit, and we all benefit enormously from the UK’s leadership in this enormous sector. We attract as much investment in our AI sector as the whole EU27 combined. That is what divergence looks like, and that is what growth looks like.

What is happening is that the EU—and I am afraid the Government—is deliberately locking the United Kingdom into its regulatory system, so that it becomes increasingly apparent that there will be no opportunity to leave. [Interruption.] I am very unclear about the speech times, Sir Edward. Have I gone over?

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

There is something wrong with the clock.

[Danny Kruger]

I have pages and pages to go, but I will end on this point. The opportunity remains for the United Kingdom to prosper from the tremendous decision that the British people took 10 years ago. Because of poor Government choices, made under the Conservatives and Labour, the United Kingdom is suffering. However, the answer is not to take a step back into the EU.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

I hope we do not have a Brexit clock.

Oral Answers to Questions

Danny Kruger Excerpts

Thursday 10th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the point in the way that he does. The resilience action plan details how we will better integrate the voluntary, community and faith sectors into planning, and I would include parish councils within that. It will also enable us to test new structures for leadership, and provide accountability and assurance through the stronger local resilience forum trailblazers programme. I acknowledge and agree with the point that he made, and I am happy to discuss it with him further.

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)]

Resilience is obviously the crucial question for the country, and the Government are right to be focusing on the need to strengthen the centre of Government to achieve that. My concern is about the legislation that has been trailed. According to a leak—presumably from a briefing from the Cabinet Office—reported in The Times this week, the Cabinet Secretary is proposing to take new powers to direct permanent secretaries of Government Departments. Will the Minister confirm whether legislation is planned to change the statutory basis of the civil service? Most importantly, does he think that the Cabinet Secretary should or should not have the power to direct permanent secretaries?

[Dan Jarvis]

I gently advise the hon. Member, as I am sure he is aware, not to believe everything that he reads in the newspapers. However, I hope that he and the House would approve of the fact that this Government, with a new Prime Minister and new First Secretary of State, will want to look very carefully at the structures of the civil service and ensure that they are delivering for the priorities of this Government.

Oral Answers to Questions

Danny Kruger Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I will relay that very message tonight to the former Chancellor of the Exchequer who runs the British Museum. I hope I will do so with the support of those on the Opposition Benches. We want the maximum number of kids to have access and to stand in front of that tapestry while it is here in the UK. It is a major moment in our island’s history and it is such a powerful one. They learn about it in school; they should be able to stand in front of it. I credit my hon. Friend for the amazing campaign she has run. I know the school children in her own constituency will be there, but I can hear in her voice that she wants that for every child in this country. Let us see what we can do.

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)]

Q10. I applaud the Prime Minister’s focus on civil society and on support for young people, but the fact is that in his time as Mayor of Greater Manchester youth employment did not improve. In fact, it got worse and no amount of taxpayer-funded support is going to fix that. Will the Prime Minister accept that the way to get young people into work is to provide meaningful tax cuts for businesses and to ensure that people who can work should be working?

[The Prime Minister]

I indicated that earlier today. Young people who can work should be working. I believe they want to work; the question is whether we have always given them the support they need. As Mayor of Greater Manchester, I proudly delivered a huge increase in the work placements attached to T-levels that benefited young people and I introduced a free bus pass for 16 to 18-year-olds to connect them to opportunity. Actually, the rise in NEETs—those not in education, employment or training—was not the same in Greater Manchester as in other parts of the country, so the hon. Gentleman might want to go back and check that. Let us work to get the best possible package we can to support our young people. It is too hard growing up as it is at this moment in time; we can make things better if we do so with cross-party support. That is the best message we could send to the next generation.

Rewiring the State

Danny Kruger Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Louise Haigh]

I will ensure that the hon. Lady’s concerns are heard by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and I can confirm that the Communities Secretary will determine next steps on local government reform by the end of October 2026.

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)]

I want to be constructive because I welcome the creation of a stronger centre, with a proper political centre in No. 10 and a corporate HQ for the non-political functions. My question to the Minister is: what is the residual point of the Cabinet Office in this new structure? Some 12,000 people are currently employed in the Cabinet Office and all its quangos. Some of them will be redistributed, but what is the point of that office in future? Likewise, what is the point of the Cabinet Secretary’s post? How is anything going to change when the same people are working in the same buildings, under the same incentives?

[Louise Haigh]

The Cabinet Office supports the wider civil service and still fulfils a number of incredibly important functions, including cross co-ordination of governmental priorities. The Cabinet Secretary’s role is to run the civil service as a whole, and that role will always be required.

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.