Steve Barclay MP: speeches

Speeches

• 30 Jun 2026 · Defence Investment Plan · Hansard source

  More

  The strategic defence review highlighted the importance of the active reserve, but the defence investment plan shows that there is no increase in reserve numbers this Parliament. Remarkably, the reserve is not mentioned in the land section. Even the commitment on cadets, made less than a year ago in August, has been shelved. Can the Secretary of State at least confirm to the reservists watching this debate that their reserve service days this year will be fully protected?

• 9 Jun 2026 · Draft Marine Licensing (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment etc.) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  indicated assent.

• 9 Jun 2026 · Draft Marine Licensing (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment etc.) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for giving way. I will take your steer, Sir John, and make this my last intervention. The Minister has tempted me to intervene once more, because the exact justification that she gave for the cost of compliance being 10 or 20 times the cost of the fine relied on enforcement, but the reason why there have been only two licences granted in the period she cited is that there is so little enforcement because this is beyond national jurisdiction. The Marine Management Organisation has no vessels in the Pacific. There is no impact assessment with this regulation. How will it be enforced in areas beyond our jurisdiction if there is no impact assessment and no additional funding for that enforcement?

• 9 Jun 2026 · Draft Marine Licensing (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment etc.) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I fear that I may have read the legislation a little more closely than the Minister. Some media reports suggest what compliance with this regulation would involve for a company. We are talking about conducting an environmental impact assessment beyond national jurisdiction and significant further work. The cost of complying with the EIA requirement could run to a couple of million pounds. For me, the question is not the international ambition—of course everyone in the House wants our marine environment to be protected—but why the Minister is today introducing legislation the cost of compliance with which will be 10 or 20 times the cost of the fine for non-compliance.

• 9 Jun 2026 · Draft Marine Licensing (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment etc.) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister not give way on that specific point?

• 9 Jun 2026 · Draft Marine Licensing (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment etc.) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 9 Jun 2026 · Draft Marine Licensing (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment etc.) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  My reading last night suggested that it was just £50,000. It is interesting that the Minister does not know what the fine actually is. What does she think the cost of complying with the EIA requirement would be for a company?

• 9 Jun 2026 · Draft Marine Licensing (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment etc.) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  What is the maximum fine for a company that does not comply with this regulation?

• 9 Jun 2026 · Draft Marine Licensing (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment etc.) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  The typical cost—the average cost?

• 9 Jun 2026 · Draft Marine Licensing (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment etc.) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  Your party’s going through them pretty quick, too!

• 4 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Mr Speaker, as long ago as September 2024, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was notified of a category 1 incident, the most serious category of pollution incident, which occurred near Whittlesey in my constituency. When no prosecution occurred following the incident, I raised the issue on the Floor of the House in March and the Minister promised to write to me. When no response was received after a number of weeks, I escalated it to you, Mr Speaker, in a letter at the end of April. The Department committed to a reply by 8 May. We are now a further month on from that date and still there has been no reply. If the Government have changed their policy and are no longer prosecuting the most serious category 1 water incidents, should that change of policy not be notified to the House, or is it that Ministers simply, despite repeated requests, have no idea what is happening in their own Department?

• 4 Jun 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  When Lord Mandelson WhatsApped one of the Government’s most senior Ministers to say that growth plans were in the hands of the Chancellor, the now Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister replied: “It doesn’t fill you with confidence”. A good illustration of that can be seen in Cambridgeshire. Just last year, after spending £80 million of public money and securing planning permission for the largest brownfield site for 8,500 homes, the Government cancelled the scheme. This week, the Government announced yet another unelected quango, the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation, to lead on housing. That is in addition to the Greater Cambridge Partnership, which leads on housing, the metro mayor, who leads on housing, and the county council and district council, which also lead on housing—and if that is not enough, there is also Cambridge Ahead, which is the voice of civil leadership on issues such as housing. Why should having so many duplicate bodies, which cost taxpayers in my constituency so much money, give anyone confidence that this Government can deliver growth?

• 4 Jun 2026 · General Medical Council · Hansard source

  More

  A nine-year-old constituent of mine, Jack Moate, died in 2015, two months after an operation was carried out on his hips by an orthopaedic consultant at Addenbrooke’s hospital in Cambridge. Jack’s mother, Elizabeth, said he spent his final weeks in “constant agonising pain”. At the time, she had been told that his treatment had been properly reviewed and that no concerns had been identified, but an independent clinical review later found “evidence that fatal physical harm was caused”. A nine-year-old boy in constant, agonising pain. As the case has been referred to the coroner, I am restricted by the sub judice rule under which we operate in commenting further on the details of Jack’s case at this stage. It is, of course, vital that the inquest can ensure that the full truth is established. One of the key things I want to achieve through this Adjournment debate, on behalf of Elizabeth, is to encourage the Minister, who is respected across the House, to ask for a full briefing from her officials on the full aspects of this case. It is not constrained by the sub judice rule, so she is able to get that briefing from her officials. I therefore hope that she will be fully sighted on the issues that it gives rise to. What I can talk about at this stage is the wider regulatory landscape regarding clinicians, and specifically the role of the GMC, on which there is currently a live consultation titled, “Reforming the General Medical Council legislative council”. As the Minister will know, that consultation is open until 23 June, so this Adjournment debate is timely. The issues at Cambridge University Hospitals NHS foundation trust raise serious wider patient safety concerns in the context of the consultation, specifically where concerns are raised but a trust does not act, where a trust does not act even after a whistleblower has raised concerns, and where other clinicians fail to intervene, and where the regulatory oversight does not kick in. It is vital, in the context of that consultation, that the GMC takes the opportunity to review expeditiously how it reforms medical practices that are problematic, and to ensure that they are not strung out over a period of many years, as I will come on to highlight. Where shortcomings in medical practice are discovered, the GMC should act immediately to protect patients, rather than waiting for the outcome of a coroner’s process, which may take many years to conclude, during which time further harm could be caused. I hope the House will revisit the circumstances of Jack’s case once the coroner’s process has been concluded, and I hope the Minister will commit to returning to the House to make a statement at that point, so that the issues that cannot be raised today can be debated without restriction. Alongside that issue with the GMC, I want to raise two further points. My second point relates to the GMC’s judgment, and specifically its poor judgment in relation to antisemitism. The Minister will have noticed her own Department’s response just this morning to Lord Mann’s recommendations to tackle what he describes as “routine ostracism of Jewish people” in the NHS—that is the description from the Government’s adviser. Indeed, Ministers quite rightly have said that all racism in the NHS is abhorrent, yet current GMC practice, to me, falls significantly below the expectations set out in Lord Mann’s report. Given that his recommendations have been welcomed and accepted by the Government in full, there must be an expectation that the consultation, and indeed reform of the GMC, will reflect that. Will Health Ministers require the GMC to change the current threshold for what it sees as a standard compatible with an NHS clinician? Let me give a specific example that illustrates the current gap between the GMC and what I see as the Government’s response to Lord Mann’s report. Just a few weeks ago, the NHS clinician Dr Martin Whyte was seen as fit by the GMC to join the GMC specialist register—a senior role within the NHS. Yet when I was Secretary of State for Health, I reported Dr Martin Whyte to the GMC following abhorrent social media comments. While it is distressing to read them out, I think it is important for the House to hear exactly what this doctor—who has just been put on the GMC specialist register—had to say. For example, he said: “hahaha zeig heil hahaha gas the jews hahaha just kidding but have you seen these youtube videos about the holohoax they’re pretty convincing imo”. That is from a doctor. In another tweet, he said: “Ahaha you thin skinned babyman. How are you still so prominent at the BBC? Did you and Tony Hall kill a prostitute together or something?” Another tweet talked of “Jew banker goblins”—that gives a sense of the character we are dealing with. Obviously, I had a sometimes challenging relationship with the British Medical Association during my time as Health Secretary, but interestingly even it, which Dr Whyte unsuccessfully tried to sue, said that he was someone who could never return to represent it in any elected office. The BMA found him unpalatable—but not, it seems, the GMC. That is not an isolated case. The Campaign Against Antisemitism has said: “Britain’s regulatory bodies are failing the Jewish community. Time and again doctors who spew antisemitic bile online and in the streets are being allowed to continue practising medicine”. Again, that is a flavour of Lord Mann’s report from this morning. There are other examples. I will not go through them all, but I will give just one example. Dr Rehiana Ali, a consultant neurologist who was reinstated just last year, said that the architect of the 7 October attacks was a “legend”, called for Israel to be “dismantled” and claimed that 9/11 was conducted by Mossad. I have no doubt that such examples horrify the Minister, given her good reputation in the House, as well as Members on all Benches. But they do point to why the consultation is timely and why, in response to Lord Mann’s report, we need to see action in respect of the GMC. The third issue that I want to highlight regards the wider poor performance of the GMC. This is an organisation that spends north of £100 million on staff costs—it has got more than 1,700 staff—yet doctors’ fitness to practise hearings are taking, on average, almost two years to process, with a recent increase in cases open for three years or more. That time matters because the NHS must continue to pay suspended doctors in full until they are formally found to be guilty of misconduct or incompetence. It just adds to the grievance that families feel when they see a doctor being paid for years even though there are very serious concerns regarding their fitness to practise—never mind the fact that if they do continue to practise during that time, there may be ongoing risk to patients. Further, in October last year it came to light that the GMC had allowed doctors with restrictions regarding their overseas practice to practise without restrictions here, which clearly can put patients at risk. It is notable that even the Medical Defence Union has called for new legislation so that the GMC can overhaul its processes. Will the Minister use the Health Bill as an opportunity to table amendments for that? If not, which legislation will she use to address some of these issues regarding the GMC? In a spirit of balance, when dealing with regulatory bodies I want to be clear about the important distinction to draw between the sort of cases I have highlighted and those of medics who have made a genuine mistake—often in a highly pressured environment—where indeed we want to encourage a culture of openness and learning. Indeed, I think back to the 2011 case of Dr Bawa-Garba, where I think a lot of the backlash to that and concerns of the wider profession were about the sense that clinical reflections made in good faith as part of learning were being used in legal proceedings, as well as the extent to which a trainee was possibly being scapegoated. I hope the House can see the marked distinction between the grave cases that I have highlighted today and the case of a clinician who, in the heat of a high pressure situation, made a genuine mistake and where the case is addressed in a spirit of openness and transparency. I am sure the Minister can draw that distinction. I hope that I am correct in my understanding that Ministers are minded to give the Professional Standards Authority greater powers, including to ensure that it has the information necessary to make decisions on exercising its right to appeal fitness to practise decisions, and to enable a more agile approach to regulatory performance monitoring. If the Minister confirms that in her response, I would welcome that. How we protect patients better is a long-running issue. I know a number of my predecessors as Secretary of State for Health were focused on this—indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) worked extensively on patient safety when I was his deputy in the Department. For my part, I focused on giving families a stronger voice in the NHS—through Martha’s rule, for example, and increasing data transparency. It is clear from the Government’s response this morning that the current ministerial team is also focused sincerely on how to enhance patient safety, but that does require a regulator that is fit for purpose, and there are significant concerns about the GMC. I hope that the Minister will use legislation before the House, alongside the current consultation, to address some of the concerns I have raised today.

• 1 Jun 2026 · Child Sexual Offender Data · Hansard source

  More

  My point flows from the important case that my right hon. Friend is making and from what the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) said. A key element of transparency is finding patterns of behaviour in covering up the crimes. It is not only about patterns in offenders; we also need transparency about where crimes were covered up and the patterns in that.

• 22 Apr 2026 · Army Reserve · Hansard source

  More

  It is worth putting on the record that there are many good employers who recognise that. At the same time, we want to make it as easy as possible for those willing to be reservists to do so. I want to flag that and some of the consistency across Government. I will come on to some solutions. I talked about the context of the £3.5 billion efficiency savings this year—the money is next year, 2027—and the pressure of that. I remind Treasury colleagues that reserve pay and bounties is less than one quarter of 1% of the MOD budget, which is why this area of MOD spend brings a lot of bang for its buck. I also remind the Minister of the 2009 Guardian front page, when Gordon Brown had to intervene because that past Labour Treasury was straining to make savings in this territory. That caused such angst on the Government Benches at the time that the decision was U-turned. I know this Government do not particularly want to U-turn—that would be a heresy in the current climate—but it may be helpful for the Minister to get ahead of the argument with Treasury colleagues. We are talking about a very small sum of money in an area that offers real defence capability. It is not the most fertile political terrain for the Treasury to strike. The Minister will know better than most in this House about the NATO commitments in article 3 and how we meet those—the reserves are key to that. And I am sure she has seen the excellent paper from Professor Vincent Connelly and Hamish Mundell, part of a series by the Royal United Services Institute, highlighting the importance of this area and why we in this House should focus on it.

• 22 Apr 2026 · Army Reserve · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the Army Reserve. It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Barker. It is also a pleasure to have the Minister in her place; she brings with her a distinguished service record and is recognised across the House as having a genuine commitment to our armed forces. I am sure that she, like me, recognises that the role of the Army Reserve has changed in recent years. When we debate this issue, we are not simply talking about training days with the reserves; they play a much more active role in supporting defence capabilities on a daily basis. In bringing forward this debate, my purpose is not to strike a partisan tone. There is much on which both sides of the House can agree. First, the Government are right to say that the threat to our national security has increased, and increased materially. The strategic defence review is right to focus on expanding our reserves as one of the measures that we need to take. The Armed Forces Bill, despite some of the noise in the media, has a number of sensible measures on updating legislation. There are areas, as a foundation, that all sides of the House can agree on. My principal concern is the gap between the Government’s words and their delivery. In particular, I am concerned about their delivery in the context of negotiations with the Treasury, and in the context of a No. 10 that is perhaps distracted by other issues and not as focused on responding to the national security threat with provisions such as the reserves. I will address that point through three areas: first, the reserve numbers; secondly, a specific issue this year around the Government’s commitment to reserve service days, a material issue on which it would be helpful to hear directly from the Minister; and thirdly, funding prioritisation and to what extent—given some of the media stories regarding the Ministry of Defence and the wider context that it faces—funding, whether for equipment or estate for the reserves, will be ringfenced or secured this year. On numbers, Members on both sides of the House recognise that boosting the number of our reserves is probably one of the best-value options for the MOD in terms of building defence capability. It is what I would regard as low-hanging fruit—something that should be done. The SDR set a modest ambition of a 20% increase, but I think we should be doubling the numbers this Parliament; other countries such as France are doing that—and from a higher base, so up to over 100,000. Even on the Government’s more modest ambition of 20%, if we actually look at what has happened since the general election, there was an initial fall in numbers until the SDR. In that non-partisan spirit, however, let us just look at the numbers since the SDR: in that period, there has been virtually no increase. Since coming into office, the number of reservists fell by 119 personnel—not particularly consequential—but since the SDR, it has risen by just 249. To put that in context, on the Government’s current trajectory, it is going to take 13 years to meet their own more modest target—a target that is a fifth of the French target and that starts from a lower base. In other words, it is going to take 13 years just to add 20% to our reserves, when the French are going to double theirs. The record so far does not match the Government’s words about the increased threat and the importance of the reserves.

• 22 Apr 2026 · Army Reserve · Hansard source

  More

  I say this very gently, because there is huge agreement on this, but I draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that the Public Accounts Committee, which has a majority of Labour members, says no movement is expected on that until the next decade—so not this Parliament. Does she agree on that, or does she think her colleagues are wrong?

• 22 Apr 2026 · Army Reserve · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree. The Government say they are committed to tackling things such as the cost of living; everyone in the House is very worried about the growth in youth unemployment and other pressures, and we want society to come together in more integrated ways. The armed forces are a unifier within society, so the hon. Gentleman’s points are extremely pertinent. Let us look at this key point of reserve service days in the context of what has happened in the first two years of the Labour Government. In 2023, there were 1.339 million training days recorded; that dropped to 1.17 million last year. I am not trying to overstate the position—those are modest changes—but the direction of travel is wrong. Given the national security threats, the reserves are more important, and other countries are moving much faster on this. That is why I want to hear from the Minister a clear commitment to units up and down the country and to reserve service days. That is the most material issue that I want to flag in this debate. My third point, which I concede has been an issue for many years, is that there has always been a temptation to give a lower priority to the reserve estate and equipment within the MOD more generally. The Government are right to say that the reserves are really important, but following on from that we need ringfenced funding for equipment and the estate. I know that there are specific issues, and we have the reserve estate optimisation programme, but the funding for that this year is not clear. Perhaps the Minister can clarify that. Given the £3.5 billion efficiency target, the Department could be tempted to stray into such areas, but if someone is a reservist in the logistics unit and there are no vehicles, or is in an artillery unit and there are very few guns, that has a corrosive impact on morale and on wider defence capability. Let us look at how things have changed. The conflict in Ukraine is, in essence, a conflict between two reservist armies: reservists have been called up on the Ukraine side, and there are now reservists on the Russian side. We can see from the direction of travel just how important the capability of our reserves is. The Government are right to flag that, so it would be very odd if they were to cut reserve service days this year or if they did not protect the budget.

• 22 Apr 2026 · Army Reserve · Hansard source

  More

  Again, there is a lot of agreement in the House about these points. With that in mind, I will suggest a couple of potential solutions—I always think it is better to come with solutions than with problems—and ask the Minister for an update. First, it would be great to have a clear signal to units about reserve service days. Secondly, the Minister will be familiar with the case of Major Milroy, which goes to the issue of fairness. The Government have lost twice in tribunal. There was a debate on that case a couple of months ago, so it would be helpful to have an update. Thirdly, Labour Members often talk about the perils of zero-hours contracts, but of course reservists are often in essence on zero-hours contracts. It would be interesting to know whether the Government are considering a statutory underpinning for employers’ commitments.

• 22 Apr 2026 · Army Reserve · Hansard source

  More

  I know that the hon. Member has a long-standing commitment to the cadets and the military in general. The cadets is a recognised pipeline into the armed forces, and I am sure the Minister recognises its importance in giving people their first taste of military experience. Again, I think that is an area of agreement. The first point I want to land is that in the first two years of this Government, the number of reservists has fallen overall, if we take the quarterly statistics published in April that give the numbers to January. The current record does not match the Government’s words. My second point is on reserve service days and this year’s commitment—

• 22 Apr 2026 · Army Reserve · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is right. I represent the rural constituency of North East Cambridgeshire, and I recognise the point that he raises; that plays into the issue of overall numbers and into the second point that I am coming on to, which is about the commitments for the existing numbers. Let me set out the crux of the issue. Media reports suggest that the MOD has been asked to make efficiency savings of £3.5 billion this year. My concern is that quite often, areas of the budget are locked down—they are fixed and cannot be shifted—so it is tempting for the MOD to look to the reserves as an area most able to meet those efficiency targets. The reserve service days could be cut as part of that. That is hugely disruptive because it often means that posts, as they come up for renewal, are delayed and left vacant; it means those who might have planned financially to do a certain number of days find those plans change; and it means those trying to fit in annual leave or commitments with their existing employer find those plans disrupted at short notice. Given that I have heard anecdotal reports of units already being told that their reserve service days may be reduced this year, could the Minister send a clear message to reservists up and down the country that the Government do value their work and the reserve service days, and that there will be no reduction in reserve service days this year? In the overall scheme of things, for a budget of £60 billion, the cost of the reserves is tiny if one is trying to meet those wider budget challenges.

• 22 Apr 2026 · Army Reserve · Hansard source

  More

  That commitment is the most important point, but it can wait until after the hon. Member’s welcome intervention.

• 22 Apr 2026 · Army Reserve · Hansard source

  More

  Could the Minister perhaps write to me?

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  In the readout of the Prime Minister’s meeting on 15 April on vetting, it states: “There is no evidence that the decision to grant DV despite the UKSV advice had been disclosed to anyone outside FCDO and UKSV” until the vetting document itself was shared with the permanent secretary of the Cabinet Office. Is the Prime Minister therefore saying that neither the Chair of the Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security nor the National Security Adviser were aware of the security risk with our most important strategic ally until the vetting document itself was shared with Cat Little?

• 13 Apr 2026 · Draft Building Safety (Responsible Actors Scheme and Prohibitions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I rise because I listened carefully to the Minister and there was an inherent contradiction in her opening remarks. The legislation was presented as minor, technical and not significant—in fact so insignificant that it has no impact assessment, as is referred to in paragraph 9 of the explanatory memorandum. Yet it states in paragraph 5.3 that the legislation deals with “developers who refuse to remediate life-critical fire safety defects”, so we are talking about a hugely significant issue, on which many hon. Members in the Labour party have, post-Grenfell, quite rightly campaigned. It is an issue through which many home owners have been left in limbo. One would have thought that legislation introduced to the House on that important issue, legislation which can remediate life-critical fire safety defects, would be significant, particularly when paragraph 5.6 goes on to state that the consequences for non-compliance with the legislation are severe because the regulations prevent a developer from completing other major developments. That is a very significant tool to ensure that critical fire safety issues are addressed and that those developers who behave irresponsibly can be held to account. I would again expect there to be agreement across the House on that. Labour Members have no doubt campaigned for such developers to be held to account, and that is in the SI: there is a clear lever with which developers who have not taken action on critical fire safety issues can be, in essence, stopped from selling their future developments. That is what the legislation is all about. A third piece of evidence is the manifesto on which Labour Members stood. In the general election campaign, Labour said it wanted to “take decisive action” on this issue. What better opportunity for taking decisive action than introducing legislation to the House? Yet the Minister does not even seem to comply with paragraph 10.1— I have not seen any notes from officials to help her out either—which states that the Department should already be publishing data on progress. We are almost two years into their Administration and, as I pointed out, no less than the Housing Minister himself tabled parliamentary questions on this issue. The Housing Minister has a burning constituency issue with a controversial developer in his own constituency that, in January of last year, was subjected to a fine of some £7.8 million by the Planning Inspectorate. Is it not odd that we cannot get any information on any firms that have been put on the prohibitions list in the last two years, including the one that was apparently connected to a “mutant development” in the Housing Minister’s own constituency?