Oral Answers to Questions

Danny Kruger Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Louise Sandher-Jones]

I wholeheartedly agree. That was a key message of this defence investment plan, which looks ahead to the technology that we will need in the future—for example, we have allotted £5 billion to uncrewed systems, exactly as my hon. Friend says.

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)]

The money in the DIP is clearly not enough, but it is welcome that some money has been found for defence, and I particularly welcome the new drone facility that is coming to Swindon in Wiltshire. In a genuinely constructive spirit, can I ask the Minister whether she is content with the model of defence procurement we have in this country, and whether she thinks that with a new Secretary of State and a new Prime Minister coming, now is the time to do a lot more to expedite the sort of innovative defence procurement that we will need to make the weapons for the future?

[Louise Sandher-Jones]

I thank the hon. Member for raising a hugely important point—he is absolutely right. When I was serving, I saw some of the areas in which we need improvement. This Government are absolutely committed to changing and improving our procurement system so that it can deliver the vital kit and equipment that our brave troops deserve.

Defence Investment Plan

Danny Kruger Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his advocacy of that important programme, which I have been briefed on and have already discussed with the general secretary of the GMB. My hon. Friend will understand that I need to look carefully at the detail of it, so I am not in a position to make a commitment at the Dispatch Box. A decision will be forthcoming, but I am keen to discuss the programme further with him.

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)]

With this new money, the defence budget is due to rise by about £17 billion a year over the next four years. In that same period, the welfare budget is going to rise by about £60 billion. That is almost the whole defence budget just in the increase in welfare spending.

General Barrons, who co-authored the Government’s strategic defence review, said in response to today’s announcement that

“we’re not keeping up with our allies”

or “with our enemies”. Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that the Government have failed to fund the strategic defence review and left us dangerously exposed, particularly at sea? The Secretary of State talks about spending wisely. How much of the money that the Government have announced they will be spending will go to SMEs and not to the big primes that have delivered us programmes like Ajax?

[Dan Jarvis]

I genuinely welcome the question from the hon. Member, not least because often no Members from his party are in attendance for defence debates. I think he has previously made the point that he represents more members of the armed forces in his constituency than anyone else. I therefore make the point to him gently that it would not be unreasonable for us to have a slightly more constructive dialogue about these things. I hope that he will consider that for the future.

Armed Forces Bill

Danny Kruger Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 22nd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alan Strickland (Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor) (Lab)]

It is apt that the House meets during Armed Forces Week to discuss this important Bill. I strongly welcome it, and commend Ministers past and present for using its passage to not just renew service law, which Parliament is required to do every five years, as hon. Members have said, but genuinely drive wider improvements for the benefits of service personnel and our national defence. My speech focuses on housing elements of the Bill, around which there remains some debate, and on which there are a number of amendments.

Before I come to the amendments, there are two reasons why the new approach to defence accommodation is incredibly important. The first is a point of principle: there can be no greater calling in the public service of our nation that donning uniform to defend our fellow citizens. I am proud to be a County Durham MP, and the county has one of the highest proportions of serving and veteran armed forces personnel in the country. Those from our communities who are prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice to defend our way of life deserve the best support. That includes housing. Providing good-quality service homes should be non-negotiable. It should be a source of shame that, under the last Government, the housing element of the duty we owe our personnel fell far short of what they rightly deserve.

My second point is pragmatic. The historic failures on service housing have caused operational problems for those tasked with defending our nation. The state of some military housing hampers the day-to-day ability of our armed forces to compete in a competitive labour market. That matters; a Defence Committee report in 2023 highlighted that housing and other issues were making it difficult for our armed forces to recruit and retain talented people. Because of the fantastic investment that our armed forces make in defence personnel—I have seen that for myself on bases—whether in fighting troops, engineers, or others, we thankfully make our personnel highly competitive in the modern labour market, so there is rightly a draw on them. This issue absolutely must be addressed if we are serious about improving our defence, and I commend Ministers for their determination to address it.

New clause 12 calls for a report on the potential for establishing a forces housing association. I respect the intent of this proposal entirely, but I think we might be in danger of putting form before function here. I say that as somebody who, before my election, worked for 14 years in housing—for seven years as a council housing cabinet member, building council housing, overseeing an arm’s length management organisation and working with major developers to secure billions of pounds of investment in Tottenham after the riots, and then for seven years as the director of a large housing association, again delivering complex projects—so I have seen housing from many angles, and many providers.

Working in the housing sector, I have seen that what matters fundamentally is the quality of leadership and culture, not necessarily the detail of the structures. The emphasis should therefore be on strong, clear and transparent leadership. It can be found at the heart of the best social and public housing providers. That might sound like an obvious point, but in the rapidly changing world of housing, it takes a particular type of leader to deliver on projects involving large numbers of residents, stakeholders and contractors, because it is hard.

I was therefore pleased to hear the commitments made, in the oral evidence sessions of the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, to the Defence Housing Service having an independent chair, non-executive directors and a family representative. That mix of strong, robust leadership is exactly right, and is in accordance with good practice in the wider housing sector. I hope that Ministers will make the most of this structure by recognising that there is a wealth of leadership experience and skill in council housing departments, big housing associations and other social housing providers—people who have dedicated their careers to this. They could lend their expertise to the Defence Housing Service. I hope that Ministers will proactively tap into that pool of talent across the country to ensure that the new organisation works at every level.

Amendment 8 seeks to introduce an objective of improving the satisfaction of service personnel. Having worked in the housing sector for 14 years, I would expect that the satisfaction of residents or customers would be a core part of everything that the Defence Housing Service did, and one of the main issues for discussion by the board and the leadership team. Whether or not Parliament sets these as objectives slightly misses the point; the point is that they should be the absolute bread and butter of that organisation, day to day. I am sure that Ministers will talk to the board and the leadership of that organisation about that.

On the point about organisational culture, having worked in the sector, I have seen complex housing organisations in which there is a culture of delivery, real care for residents and a determination to fix things, which can often be complex, and a culture of getting things done. Equally, I have seen housing providers in which the opposite is true—where things are not done, things take a long time, residents are seen as a nuisance and complaints are seen as a pain, rather than as an object for learning. Again, the key lesson for Ministers is to work with the new organisation to drive the culture; I know that having served in uniform, Ministers will be used to driving strong culture through organisations. That is the key issue here.

In my previous career, I saw that the social housing sector has become more complex. Organisations increasingly deliver maintenance, long-term asset management, investment programmes and new home building, and deal with the construction issues with homes for rent and sale—the complex mix of things we will be tasking the Defence Housing Service with doing. Some organisations were just overwhelmed. Strong leadership and strong culture are needed, and there is clear evidence that with those, we can make this work.

There is something else that we need to defend against in the Defence Housing Service—and I know that Ministers are cognisant of this. In council housing departments and charitable housing associations, the pressure to deliver quickly has often led to convoluted chains of accountability, involving layer upon layer of contractors and subcontractors. The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Alex Baker) made about accountability is important. We have seen in many of the reports following the terrible Grenfell tragedy that there were layers and layers of organisations involved, without any clear accountability, and that caused some of the appalling problems there. There should be an emphasis on accountability in the Defence Housing Service.

Ministers and the board will find really good advice in many reports from the Housing Ombudsman and the Regulator of Social Housing’s in-depth assessments; there is lots of evidence from Government about how to make complex housing organisations work well. We know that this was one of the main issues that came with the privatised model of service housing that was introduced by the previous Conservative Government, and it is why I strongly support the changes being made.

On visits through the armed forces parliamentary scheme, we have met lots of service personnel who shared stories of outsourced housing contractors being difficult to contact, unresponsive and acting slowly; equally, we heard from senior and base commanders who were keen to ensure the best accommodation for their people, but who struggled to hold private providers to account and have lacked direct lines of accountability. I know that Ministers will be tackling those issues, and that might be a better way of addressing them than through the amendments that have been tabled.

Amendment 11 seeks to bring the Defence Housing Service’s budget into the defence investment plan. The key point here is not which budget the money technically sits in, but whether the housing commitment will be properly resourced; I know that Ministers are committed to ensuring that it is. The £9 billion commitment from Government is really powerful; work has already started on repairing military homes. The debate about whether that £9 billion sits in the DIP or elsewhere, again, slightly misses the point; the point is whether this Government are committed to investing and providing resource to get this fixed and sorted, and the answer is yes. I am sure that will change and develop as time goes on, as the organisation is fully set up and the board takes real control of that. That, I think, is our key priority.

In summary, strong leadership, an accountable, can-do culture that gets stuff done and proper resourcing are the key ingredients of to delivering for our servicemen and women in uniform, and I am confident that ministerial colleagues will drive that forward. A number of Members from across the House from the ’24 intake who came to the House with significant experience of working for complex housing organisations would be very happy to support Ministers on the road ahead.

Lastly, while I will not go into these elements in detail, I want to say how important the parts of the Bill that deal with the covenant are. Expanding the armed forces covenant duty to central Government Departments is absolutely the right thing to do if we are to stay true to the duty that we owe our service people. It is entirely right that it applies to all layers of Government. On Friday, I met a constituent at my surgery—a veteran—who was raising concerns about his access to services from the NHS and other parts of the local public sector. He was struggling to get the support that he needed. Members know from our casework that support for our veterans is not always consistent, and that must improve across the public sector. That is why enshrining the covenant in law, through this Bill, is such an important step. Those serving our nation in uniform, those who have served and their families deserve the very best support. That is why I am proud to support this Bill.

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland).

I start by stating, on behalf of my party, our support for this Bill and its important provisions, not simply because it extends the legal basis of our armed forces, but because of the very important new provisions that it introduces. We very much support the extension, which the hon. Gentleman just mentioned, of the armed forces covenant to more policy areas. We also support the expansion of recall for reservists; it would be good if we could actually recruit more reservists, full stop, but it is very welcome that we will be able to recall more of them. Most of all, I support the principle of better housing for veterans and forces families. I think I represent more forces families and veterans than any other MP; the area that I represent covers part of Salisbury plain, Tidworth, Bulford and Larkhill, and despite what it says outside Aldershot, we are the true home of the British Army—I hope that the hon. Member for Aldershot (Alex Baker) will allow me to make that claim—and I am very keen to ensure that our forces and their families are properly accommodated.

I recognise the point made by the hon. Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor that what really matters is the leadership of housing organisations. However, I want to express my concern about a measure that will create a new quango responsible for forces families. I instead support the official Opposition proposal that we create a dedicated housing association for that purpose.

I will turn now to the amendments tabled by other Members and parties that we support. It is important that the budget for the new housing organisation is properly reflected in the defence investment plan, when it comes out. I would also very much like a commitment from the Government that we will see in due course the effect of this long, unacceptable and unaccountable delay to the defence investment plan. What effect will the delay have on our procurement and military readiness?

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Akehurst]

Is the strategy not in the strategic defence review that was published last year? I remember reading it, and copies were available from the Vote Office. I would recommend that the hon. Gentleman has a look at the SDR, because it sets out what our role is in terms of geopolitics and military strategy.

[Danny Kruger]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning the SDR, because I was about to do so myself. It is not a strategy. For starters, it is a defence review. The point I was just making is that the strategy we need is upstream of defence. We need a proper national security strategy that considers, in the round, all the different levers of national power and places defence in its proper place in the hierarchy, which is downstream of the crucial strategic questions about the role that the United Kingdom will play in the world. The SDR was published over a year ago; we have seen none of its recommendations implemented, and the money that is required for it still has not been delivered.

[Luke Akehurst]

My understanding is that the recommendations in the SDR that do not require financial investment—changes of doctrine or stance or the deployment of existing forces—have been implemented. It is the defence investment plan that we are waiting for, which is primarily about additional spending above and beyond what we already spend on equipment.

[Danny Kruger]

My point is that arguing loudly for a bigger armed forces, praising our troops, as we all do, or speaking up for our allies, as we should, are not a strategy. Publishing a strategic defence review or even a defence investment plan do not count either.

[Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)]

The hon. Member says that the SDR is not about strategy, but the clue is in the name. It is a strategic defence review. Does he not agree?

[Danny Kruger]

The word “strategy” can be put on all sorts of things. I am talking about what a strategy actually is. It is a plan of action that proceeds from an objective and a doctrine about how to achieve that objective. That is what we lack as a country. We have not done grand strategy in this country for decades.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

A strategy is not a plan. A strategy is about ways, ends and means. The ways are the plan. The means are the resources. The ends are where one is going to.

[Danny Kruger]

I am conscious that the hon. Gentleman is an academic in this space. The point that I am making is that we need an overall vision for our country, a doctrine of how to achieve it and then a set of actions—working together, which I understand to be a strategy, how we deploy different assets, the different policies we have, and the different means to the ends that we have identified in pursuit of our overall objective. I do not think that any of us in this House can accurately define what that is for our country, and that is a source of great regret.

I applaud everything that the Government are trying to do to improve conditions for our armed forces. It would be great if the money were to be forthcoming as well, but there is something bigger and more profound than the questions about specific posture, kit or even deployments. It is: what are we trying to do as a country?

I want to finish by suggesting a strategy. It might sound bold and simplistic, but it is only bold because we are so weak and diminished as a country. Our strategy should be to rejoin—not the EU—the club of great powers. Currently, the great powers are the United States and China, of course, but also Russia, India and Japan. Those are the countries that recognise each other in those terms. They are great powers not because they are good—very obviously China and Russia are very bad—but because they make the weather in the world, and Britain does not, despite our country’s most incredible assets, opportunities and strengths.

The reason for setting out this objective to be a great power is not just for national pride or self-esteem but for a simple reason: a country that is not a great power is subject to those that are. Sovereignty and capability are vital in the age of tech, a high demand for energy, rare earths and high-tech skills. That is what a country needs in this age.

What does great power status look like? I do not want to join the EU. I think that would be a disaster economically and pointless from a security perspective.

[Luke Akehurst]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Danny Kruger]

I will not.

Instead, I would like the United Kingdom to lead European defence by leading a partnership of other countries that have a capable military—most obviously France, Germany, Poland and the Baltics—to defend the Euro-Atlantic from Russia, China and Iran. That is the best role we can play in partnership with our friends in the United States.

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

That sounds very much like a European defence force. In what way would that differ from the concept of a European army?

[Danny Kruger]

I absolutely do not believe that we should form a European army, and we certainly should not join any sort of chain of command organised within the EU, but we can act with European partners, as we currently do—most obviously with the northern states in the joint expeditionary force, but also with our other allies in Europe, such as Italy, France, Poland and Germany. We should do that on the basis of a genuine, bespoke partnership for the purpose of defending Europe, particularly the Euro-Atlantic sea border, where the United Kingdom has a special responsibility.

My position is that we should preserve our national sovereignty, capability and independence, but that we can do that in partnership with other countries, in defence of our common interests. That feels to me to be completely consistent with national sovereignty.

[Stuart Anderson]

I am struggling to see where the JEF, NATO and another alliance, even with our own sovereign capability, come into play. Those frameworks are already in place to enable us to stand up on the stage. It is about our funding of our capability. To the earlier point about strategy that Members were getting confused about, a grand strategy will be set out by the leader of the country, and the strategic defence review is a strategy of defence within that grand strategy.

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I am taking the opportunity of a defence debate to make the point that defence is downstream of grand strategy, and that is what is fundamentally lacking. Our defences are not going to be as strong as they could be, because they are not necessarily oriented towards the fundamental objectives that we need, which I am trying to set out in very broad terms. I am not suggesting that we need to create new structures and new alliances with new institutions—we can work within the ones that we have—but the purpose of the United Kingdom’s security strategy, and the fundamental objective we should have as a country, is to lead the defence of Europe with our partners, particularly the Euro-Atlantic sea border.

Let me conclude with this point. To lead the alliance that I suggest, we need real strength at home. More than anything, that means economic reform, liberating the inventors and entrepreneurs, particularly in the exciting new fields of defence tech. It means freeing up private capital that will ultimately fund our defence in addition to anything that the Government can find. It means driving forward on AI, which is the new, great frontline for everything. It also means securing the supply of energy, licensing new oil and gas exploration, and radically reforming our planning system. None of that is being done by the Government. That is why, although I absolutely support the objectives of the Bill—we will vote for it tonight if it goes to a Division—I still fear for our security as a country.

[Michelle Scrogham]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger), mostly because it is such a rarity—like hen’s teeth—to see our Reform colleagues in the Chamber for these debates.

I turn to new clause 10, tabled by the Conservative party. I would be supportive of it if it focused less on the timeframes and more on getting the defence investment plan right. There is an urgent need to properly fund the defence investment plan as a credible, long-term commitment for our nation’s security. I call on the Government to do that.

We have seen what happens when defence is funded inconsistently—the Conservatives, in their 14 years in government, provided a masterclass in that. For years, too often spending has been drip-fed, reactive, fragmented and tied to short-term pressures rather than long-term strategy. That approach does not save money; it stores up costs and leads to delays, inconsistencies and, ultimately, weaker capability.

Nowhere is that clearer than in my constituency of Barrow and Furness, the heart of our sovereign submarine building capability. When investment falters, as it did under the coalition Government of the Opposition parties, skills are lost, highly trained engineers move on, the training pipeline is cut and the supply chain contracts. When the nation inevitably needs to accelerate production again, we are forced to rebuild that capacity at far greater expense. That is why the DIP—the first line-by-line, long-term plan of its kind in a decade—is so important. It is vital that we get it right, but also that it is properly funded to meet the scale of the threats we face and the demands placed on our armed forces. The consequences of not doing so extend beyond cost; over time, our armed forces risk becoming “hollowed out”, as referenced by former Conservative Defence Secretaries.

North Atlantic Submarine Activity

Danny Kruger Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Al Carns]

We had already supported a US boarding of a sanctioned vessel and, of course, multiple other allies as well. Russian naval escorts do escort some of these vessels. When they do, that is also putting a considerable strain on the Russian fleet, which is relatively limited when combined with its subsurface capability, and this is having an effect. What I can say is that the MOD is absolutely ready to board any ship that meets the parameters, and will do so if that happens.

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)]

I pay tribute to the Royal Navy and echo the point made by the Minister in respect of our brave personnel. I agree with him that we have the best Navy in the world—I just wish it were larger. I am unclear from what the Minister has said about whether we have had more than a narrative of what has happened over the last month and of our capabilities in respect of these events. What has actually changed in the Government’s planning with respect to defending our undersea infrastructure from Russia, in terms of either the disposition of our forces or procurement, perhaps? Also, he mentions the resilience of our undersea infrastructure. Can he tell the House a little about what plans we have to cope with an attack on undersea cables and how quickly we could recover from one?

[Al Carns]

It is a delight to see a Member from the hon. Member’s party sat in the Chamber during a statement on a defence subject—it is a first. I remind him of the capability that we have seen as this Russian operation takes place. The UK has deployed assets to map and track it, and then expose it. That, in fact, is one of the best deterrents, because no longer can Russia or indeed Putin claim that an operation or sabotage that took place was not them. That was the whole purpose of that operation, which has been fantastically conducted by the best Royal Navy in the world. Remember, it is not just the ship or the aircraft; a whole plethora of individuals—in fact, 500 people—sat behind this operation, conducting it, and it was successfully prosecuted.

Remembrance Day: Armed Forces

Danny Kruger Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)]

It has been a great pleasure to listen to the very powerful tributes paid by Members to their constituents and their constituencies. Nobody can boast as much about the British Army as the Member for East Wiltshire, which is me, because I represent the super-garrison of Tidworth, Bulford and Larkhill. I claim the largest number of serving men and women and their families of any constituency in the country, and I am enormously proud to represent them, as I was to stand with many of them at the Tidworth memorial on Sunday.

However, morale among our veterans is not high. The Minister for the Armed Forces made a very powerful statement earlier when he talked about the intensity of the memories held by service people who remember fatal conflict, and about the trauma they retain. I hope that he also recognises how many serving and former service personnel bear the terrible and ineradicable memory of another event, which is the knock on the door from the military police. So many will have to endure that memory forever because of decisions made by successive Governments. As the Minister will know, there are stories of former special forces servicemen being arrested in front of their family at dawn, handcuffed and put in the back of a police van. These very unfortunate events have happened because Governments have allowed the courts to apply a wide interpretation of the European convention on human rights that goes far beyond the measures that have traditionally bound our military in armed conflict, such as the Geneva convention, the Armed Forces Acts, and British military law.

The previous Government made, I think, a very noble effort, particularly in the case of Northern Ireland, to curtail the persecution and prosecution of our troops through the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. Essentially, it recognised that, because of the decisions that followed the Good Friday agreement, it was impossible to achieve justice for the victims of republican terrorism, so an attempt was made through that Act to achieve some balance. I think more could have been done, but it was better than the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, which is being brought before the House next week.

The merry-go-round of prosecutions is starting again. Members have powerfully made the case that this is not just about the injustice being perpetrated against our forces; it is about the defence of our country. This Bill will harm the defence of the United Kingdom, because it will directly disincentivise young people from joining up and serving in our armed forces. I implore the Minister, as a brave veteran himself, to put his former comrades ahead of the European convention on human rights, and I hope that he will consider it his duty not to support the Bill next week.

Strategic Defence Review

Danny Kruger Excerpts

Monday 2nd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Healey]

I am, and I will.

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)]

The Defence Secretary has just thrown into doubt the future of the new medium helicopter. I am very concerned to hear that that programme clearly may not go ahead. Can he tell the House whether he plans to reduce the number of RAF Chinooks, which—as he knows—are very important both to our special forces and to our Army? Are there any plans to reduce the number of Chinooks?

[John Healey]

I encourage the hon. Gentleman not to read what he has into my remarks. I was simply stating the facts as they are: there is a process under way that has to conclude. That is what I said to the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke). This review is not about cuts—it is the first review since the end of the cold war that has taken place not in the context of cuts, but in the context of a decade of rising defence expenditure. It is about enhancing what we have for the future; it is about building out, not hollowing out. I hope the hon. Gentleman will take that as the signature of the strategic defence review that we have published this afternoon.

Draft Armed Forces Act 2006 (Continuation) Order 2024

Danny Kruger Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2024 General Committees

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)]

I start by paying tribute to the Minister and welcoming him to his place. The Labour Front Bench, and indeed the whole House, is greatly enhanced by his presence, and I pay tribute to him and to his speech. I look forward to working with him on the important matters in the brief that we share.

The previous Government renewed the Armed Forces Act 2006, including through the Armed Forces Act 2021 and the Armed Forces Act 2006 (Continuation) Order 2023. Of course, we support today’s draft order. As the Minister mentioned, it reflects the constitutional principle that goes back many hundreds of years to the Bill of Rights in the 17th century, when Parliament insisted on its own right to approve the presence of a standing Army. That was in the days when the rest of Europe suffered under absolute monarchy; who knew our Parliament could insist on the rights and liberties of British subjects on its own? I am pleased to be standing in the tradition set all those years ago.

As is customary in these debates, I pay tribute to our armed forces. I have the great privilege of representing East Wiltshire. Thousands of serving personnel are stationed at the camps and garrisons at Tidworth, Netheravon, Bulford, Larkhill, Perham Down and Upavon. I was recently taken up on to Salisbury plain by the commander of the Army’s south-west region, and he showed me with a sweep of his arm where 20,000 British service personnel and their families live. I represent what I call the home of the British Army, despite what it says outside Aldershot.

We have the best people in the world serving in our armed forces. They keep us safe in a world fraught with risk and threats, and we must give them the tools they need. Labour Members will not be surprised to hear me reiterate once again the absolute imperative for a clear pathway for increasing defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2030. That is a paramount requirement, and if the Government do not commit to it now or at the Budget in a few weeks, there is a real risk of defence cuts at the worst possible time for our armed forces, when countries around the world are doing the exact opposite—rearming and increasing defence spending in order to prevent escalation and keep their people safe. At oral questions yesterday, Ministers could not even commit that defence training or research and development will have their budgets protected in the upcoming Budget. We should not beat around the bush: cuts in these areas would undermine our armed forces and our security.

Our support for the draft order is total, but we are implacably opposed to any cuts in spending, including by delaying the increases that the Government have—at least in principle—committed to in due course. The real test of our commitment to the armed forces is whether we are prepared to make that spending commitment soon.

[The Chair]

Members should bob in the normal way if they would like to speak. Do I see anybody from the Liberal Democrats? I call Helen Maguire.

Oral Answers to Questions

Danny Kruger Excerpts

Monday 14th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the House. As a fellow Devon MP, I believe it is important that we have a strong voice on defence, so I am grateful for his question. The new Government have been very clear that we see AI playing a really important role not just in defence, but across a whole range of technologies. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology is leading on much of that work in his Department. AI and related technologies are being looked at in relation to the strategic defence review, where we need not only to upscale the innovative work that is already being done by UK technologies, but to provide the skills and the supply chain to ensure that we can continue to deliver, learning the lessons from what we are seeing in Ukraine, in particular.

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)]

Ministers repeatedly state their commitment to reaching a spending level of 2.5% of GDP on defence, but they simply will not tell the House when they will do so. It is no surprise that we are already hearing reports of potential cuts to programmes in defence R&D. Will the Minister simply rule out cuts to defence R&D and science spending in this financial year and the next?

[Luke Pollard]

As a Government, we are committed to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence. We have set out clearly that that will be announced at a future fiscal event. I must say that I am a wee bit disappointed, because I would have expected the Opposition Front Benchers to stand up and apologise for the mess that they have left not just the armed forces, but the wider economy. The Government are committed to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence. We are committed to investing in our armed forces, and we will continue to do so.

Defence Spending

Danny Kruger Excerpts

Wednesday 24th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Grant Shapps]

I absolutely can confirm that. One of the features of the way that we have done this is to create a straight line from next year to 2030, to ensure that industrial capacity can ramp up with certainty behind it. I am pleased to confirm that the answer is yes.

[Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)]

The Chief of the Defence Staff from Estonia was in Salisbury plain, in my constituency, last week. He told us that his country has 40,000 men and women in its army reserve, ready to serve at 24 hours’ notice; I call that being on a war footing, given that Estonia has a population 50 times smaller than ours. I am not proposing that we try to replicate that—proportionally, that would mean a 2 million-strong reserve—but will he consider using some of the money to boost our important reserve force?

[Grant Shapps]

My hon. Friend will know that we are twinned with Estonia through NATO and we provide protection to it. Estonia is very much on the frontline with Russia, in a way that we are fortunate not to be. We currently have 30,000 reserves. Rather than use them, we can use the many other things we bring to NATO and to Estonia’s protection, including the ability to provide personnel and equipment, which we do on regular basis.

Armed Forces Readiness and Defence Equipment

Danny Kruger Excerpts

Thursday 21st March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)]

It is an honour to take part in this debate. I pay tribute to the Defence Committee and the Public Accounts Committee for what I agree are exceptionally good reports. I echo my right hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) on that point.

This is possibly the most important speech I will give as an MP, and I do so on behalf of the military in my constituency of Devizes. I have the honour to represent the garrison towns of Tidworth, Bulford, Larkhill and others. I went up on Salisbury plain recently with Colonel Matt Palmer, the commander of the Army in the south-west, who showed me with the sweep of his arm where 20,000 of our armed forces live and work. As my right hon. Friend said, we are not here just as ambassadors for our constituencies; I am going to speak in my role as an MP about the essential imperative of national security.

I will, however, first make another local point. In the Devizes constituency is the site of the battle of Roundway Down, which was the most successful battle in the royalist cause in the English civil war, in that it gave the south-west to the King for the next two years. I mention the battle of Roundway Down, because it was that defeat of the parliamentary forces that spurred the reform of the parliamentary army. That led to the creation of the new model army, which of course went on to win the civil war, and transformed the way in which the military in this country and across Europe was organised for decades to come. The lesson of the new model army and the reforms that happened in short order in the 1640s was not about a major new doctrine of warfighting, but about the imperative of having a well equipped, well trained, well led army that is innovative, agile, professional and with high morale. We need that again.

I mention that because it is on my mind, having yesterday had the pleasure of attending a session at the Royal United Services Institute organised by the New Bletchley foundation led by Brigadier Nigel Hall. It is issuing a report with input from a galaxy of distinguished former generals and other experts. Sir Richard Barrons was on the panel, as were Professor Michael Clark and others. They put forward a short report that Members can find online on a proposal for a reconfigured Army. The point the panel made—it has been made repeatedly in this debate—is simple: we have to be ready to fight the war we wish to deter. That means really ready, not just ready on paper or ready plausibly in a way that might convince someone on a doorstep that we are making sufficient investment in the Army. We need to know that we are ready, and crucially our enemy needs to know that. I echo the points made by the Chair of the Defence Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir Jeremy Quin) and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) that our enemies know what our capabilities are. They will not be deceived by spin from a press officer in Whitehall. It is essential that we are ready to fight the war.

The sad fact—there is no point sugar-coating it, given the point I have just made—is that we are not ready to fight the war we wish to deter. The reports make that plain. I have great respect for Ministers on the Front Bench, and I recognise the genuine investments going into parts of our armed forces, which are extremely welcome in my constituency, but the fact is, as General Barrons said yesterday,

“we are back in a moment of existential risk in an era of great power confrontation”.

Laying aside the fantasies of the post-cold war world of our being somehow beyond war and in an era of minor peacekeeping operations, we are back in a sense in the mid-20th century, with the crucial difference of the high-tech domains with which we are now coming to terms. Unlike the mid-20th century, we have hollowed out our Army over the past 30 years, and I echo the powerful points that my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford made drawing a comparison with the 1930s—that “low dishonest decade”, as it has famously been called. We now have three decades where we have suffered disinvestment.

While I acknowledge the major funding commitments being made to the armed forces, I highlight that they are insufficient at the moment. I recognise that abstract percentages of GDP are in a sense secondary to the real question of how we spend money and where it goes, but those figures are important, and the basic fact is that we need to be spending more than 2% or 2.5%, and at least 3%. If we consider the worst coming to the worst, and the US withdrawing its NATO commitments, as we hear threatened from time to time, across the NATO alliance we would all be needing to reach at least 4% just to maintain NATO’s current strength.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

A recent meeting of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly that I attended assessed that it would need to be an increase of 5% of GDP on top of current spend, were the Americans to pull out.

[Danny Kruger]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that. These figures seem extraordinarily large to us, but if we consider the worst coming to the worst, and our being in a hot war in Europe, we would be back to spending significantly more. It was 50% of GDP in world war two, so the figures we are talking about are essentially marginal in light of the potential.

The point has been made—it cannot be made enough—that before defence gets more money, it needs to spend its own money better. I echo the points made about the importance of procurement reform. The Public Accounts Committee report is damning. There is a £17 billion deficit between the MOD’s budget and its official capability requirements, which is perhaps an underestimate, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford said, given how these numbers are calculated. I am concerned about that.

To make a quick point in passing, I would be interested in the Minister’s thoughts when he winds up about the nuclear budget. There is real concern about how Trident’s replacement will be accounted for. There is a danger that if that is just part of general MOD capital expenditure, it could end up cannibalising conventional weapons. It is important, given the long-standing tradition, that we keep nuclear separate from conventional weapons budgets.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

Given what the hon. Gentleman has just said, does he agree that it would be good to have tighter scrutiny of that spending, which might mean a new system set up so that we can look at sensitive matters?

[Danny Kruger]

I defer to those on the Front Bench on what transparency is appropriate, but I recognise the point made in the hon. Lady’s Committee’s report and I think in the Defence Committee report about the difficulty of getting the information that the Committees need to do their work. I recognise that nuclear is identified as a separate line in the budget and is protected in theory, but I am concerned about what might be a marginal increase in this enormous budget. It is around a quarter of our total defence spending. If that increases even marginally and the shortfall has to be made up from our conventional defence budget, that entails a significant reduction in that conventional spending, which is so important at the present time.

[Mr Francois]

According to the MOD’s own figures in the latest supplementary estimates, the amount we are spending on what it calls the defence nuclear enterprise is now gusting towards 20%. Everything my hon. Friend says about the risk of that gradually eating everything else is entirely correct.

[Danny Kruger]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that. If we managed to get the genuine increase in defence spending that is needed, the question then arises of how to spend that and where the money should go. I say this not just on behalf of the 20,000 or so defence personnel in Wiltshire, but because it is the right thing to do: we need to put people first. I recognise that there has been a significant step change in the doctrine of defence policy in recent years towards the recognition that an army is fundamentally about its people, and I respect that. The fact is, probably because of the many decades of disinvestment, that we have problems of low morale, low pay, often poor housing and a shoestring training budget, all of which contribute to the recruitment crisis we have in the armed forces that my right hon. Friend mentioned.

The PAC report makes clear that we are losing people faster than we can recruit them, and that is entirely unacceptable. We have to improve recruitment. The Public Accounts Committee heard that for every five people recruited to the armed services, eight are leaving. That is a national security crisis. It is not just a problem for recruitment, but a profound security risk.

I recognise the point that the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) made that we have had too many reviews, so I hesitate to use the word—if I could think of another word, I would use it—but we need a quick total review of the people issue in our armed forces. It could be done quickly and all it probably entails is an amalgamation of all the work done by others, but I would like to see that with a great degree of urgency. It should look at recruitment, terms and conditions, families—crucially—and onward progression in all three services, so that we can with the urgency required turn around the recruitment crisis.

Having made the general point about the importance of investment in people, I come quickly to the major services of the armed forces, and first is the Navy. It is important that we invest in all five domains, including in the grey zone and sub-threshold activity, which are so important. Our principal specialism in the United Kingdom historically and now remains our sea power. It is a good thing we are moving towards a maritime strategy. I recognise that is the Government’s priority, and I say that as a representative of a land-locked county with all these soldiers in it. Nevertheless, we need significant investment in the Navy. We would all like to see these things, but let us actually do it and have more submarines, more escorts and more minesweepers. We need seabed warfare vessels. On that point, I call the House’s attention to a report from Policy Exchange a month or so ago talking about western approaches and the significant threat we face in these islands and across Europe to undersea infrastructure. It is fundamentally our responsibility on behalf of Europe to protect that.

I have mentioned the new model army and the New Bletchley report, and I would like to see a real commitment to a reformed and modernised Army. We have to recognise the point made by the former Chief of the Defence Staff Nick Carter when he said that the Army is the weakest of the three services. That is a sad state of affairs. I suppose one has to be the weakest; I am sorry it is the Army. There are big questions over our ability to field a division in Europe, as promised to NATO. According to a senior US officer, the UK cannot even be called a tier 1 power. I understand that the Committees were told by a former commander of joint forces command that our Army will not be ready to fulfil its NATO commitments until the early 1930s. Indeed, that was the assumption of the integrated review, so in a we are sense back to the 10-year rule, which is not how things should be. [Interruption.] Did I say 1930s?

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

You did.

[Danny Kruger]

I think we are up to speed on that— the 2030s.

The case for investment in the Army is obvious, and the good news is that it is easier, quicker and cheaper to refit and upscale the Army than it is the Navy, because kit is smaller and cheaper. However, we do not just need the same Army but a bigger one. We need a medium-sized Army that is bespoke for the job that will be done—the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) made the right point about the sort of Army we need. The Army needs, in a resonant phrase, to defend these islands, but it also needs to act in partnership with other services and with our allies in the west. We do not need another great new major continental army such as the one the Poles are building. We need a rapid reaction joint expeditionary force that is agile, mobile, and able to do the job that is required, in partnership with our allies.

On the sphere of operations, ultimately our commitments need to reflect the threats we face. In a sense, those are classified, and I recognise the challenge that the Committees have had in identifying what our capabilities are, and the tasks that Ministers set for them, because we cannot always know exactly what those threats are, with defence planning assumptions now classified. Nevertheless, I echo a point made by the right hon. Member for North Durham: I am delighted about AUKUS, which is a tremendous step forward in our international role and a great thing for British security. I am not averse to those global arrangements—they are absolutely right. I loved the deployment of the Queen Elizabeth and the carrier strike group to Japan.

Fundamentally, however, we are, and should be, committed to the defence of the Euro-Atlantic area, and for that purpose we must restore the mass of our own armed forces and Army. That means growing our capabilities here at home. We need more regulars, and to get back towards having 80,000 or 90,000 regular forces. We must significantly grow the reserve force because 30,000 is not enough, even if that figure of 30,000 is real, which I do not believe it is. The campaign to grow our reserves is necessary not just for its own sake, but as a great exercise in communication to the public about the imperative for us all to step up and play our role in the defence of our country.

There is a great deal of concern, which I think is misplaced, about the attitude of the British people to fighting. We had that in the 1930s, with lots of people saying that the British would not fight, but of course they would, of course they did, and of course they will if they have to answer their country’s call. That is young people in particular. They will do it with irony, and certainly with memes, but they will do it and sign up if they need to. This is not an abstraction. We have already seen in the past year or two what war in our region means. It means inflation—imagine that tenfold if a war breaks out in which our country is directly involved—and cyber-attacks on a terrible scale.

We are now at a turning point, as so many Members have said, and it is time for all of us as a country to step up. There is an opportunity and an imperative for us to strengthen our nation. It is about industrial resilience and our own food supply; it is about our supply chains, and our steel and manufacturing capacity. There is a huge opportunity, as the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) said, in the importance of the industrial supply chain. This is a time for us all to do what is needed.

[Several hon. Members rose—]