Steve Barclay MP: speeches

Speeches

• 7 Sept 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation · Hansard source

  More

  Less than two months ago, the right hon. Lady’s predecessor rushed to the House on the last day before recess, to say how essential these measures were, and Conservative Members warned that it was gerrymandering. It is not that the Secretary of State has listened; she has been told by her lawyers that it is gerrymandering. The warning signs were there two months ago when plans for Cambridgeshire were paused. When again announcing a pause for Cambridgeshire, will she tell my constituents how long the pause will be, and how much it will cost?

• 7 Sept 2026 · Health Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 7 Sept 2026 · Health Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: the Government are spending millions of pounds and there is no plan. The measure was announced without working that out, it came as a surprise to many within the system, and it has had a chilling effect on many decisions. That is not isolated. Just today, we had the complete shambles of local government reorganisation. On the last day before the summer recess, the then Secretary of State rushed to the House to push through an announcement, which the new Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government is now reversing, while the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is contradicting her by saying that the Government want to have a higher legal appetite for risk and fewer consultations. There is confusion across Departments, and the issues with clause 1, which a number of Members have spoken to, illustrate that. Given the time limit, I will turn to clause 6. I do not doubt for a minute that the Health Minister and the Secretary of State—anyone in the Department—want to promote innovation. My right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) spoke a lot about capital to revenue switches in his book, and the pressure that takes away from innovation. As Health Secretary, I used to have a wry smile at the battles I had with him, when I was pushed by the Treasury to do exactly the same thing. The issue is not the lack of will; the issue is the alignment between procurement, regulation and clinical leadership, particularly in the colleges, as well as the ability to scale innovation—it is not about having more ministerial pilots. Finally, because I am almost out of time, I will pick up on the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee’s good points around data. When I was in the Department, my frustration was that I often had to go on open-source dashboards to get information that should have been available to me as a Minister, and I suspect that that is still the case. We should make data dashboards a common theme—the CSV files that the Department publishes are extremely difficult to access. Make data more transparent; it will help the debate in Parliament and, I dare say, it will help Ministers get more support.

• 7 Sept 2026 · Health Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 7 Sept 2026 · Health Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak to clause 1 on the abolition of NHS England and clause 6 on promoting innovation. What characterises the first of those is an announcement without any clear plan. That is what has driven the cost and confusion that a number of Members across the House have spoken about. Those in any doubt about that can just look at NHS England’s own 2025-26 annual accounts, which show that the costs are already more than £100 million higher than forecast and now sit at above half a billion pounds. I do not recall seeing that on election leaflets. Indeed, just six directors at NHS England are being paid over £800,000, and that points to the cost. Sometimes such big figures are hard for constituents to get their heads around. Just to localise it to my own constituency, the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough ICB alone paid out £14 million in redundancies last year. It merged with a number of other ICBs to form the Central East ICB, yet we know hear from the Government that it should align with metro mayors, which means going back to exactly what it was before: the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough ICB. That is just one of many confusions around the announcement. The hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) spoke about confusion over the timetable and what was described to the media as now an impossible timetable. We also saw reports in the media this weekend about the destination of staff in NHS England. Can they actually go into the Department, or will another body be set up because of the pay disparity between the two? All this is around 18 months on from the actual announcement. The confusion seems to extend to the Government themselves, because they seem unable to answer pretty straightforward written parliamentary questions. Given the time limit, I will give just a few examples. I asked how many people have been hired to NHS England since the announcement of its abolition, not least given the huge cost—over half a billion pounds—of voluntary redundancies. Despite the deadline passing, the Minister has not answered the question. We know from another written parliamentary question that more than 1,000 jobs have been advertised. It is relevant to know, in an organisation that is paying people to leave, how many people it is hiring. I also asked how many people had accepted voluntary redundancy, another written parliamentary question that has passed the deadline without answer. The process is characterised by a lack of transparency.

• 7 Sept 2026 · Health Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 7 Sept 2026 · Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  Is it not bizarre that just a few hours after the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government came to the House to pause local government reorganisation on the basis of legal risk, so that she can have more consultation, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said, “We will bring an end to consultation culture and, with guidance from the Attorney General on legal risk, give Ministers the confidence to make decisions”? Will they have a greater appetite for legal risk, or will they pause to have more consultations? The two Ministers are saying opposite things.

• 7 Sept 2026 · Draft Digital Government (Disclosure of Information) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister clarify how many people are within scope of benefiting from the regulation and what the total cost will be, in terms of the savings they will get?

• 7 Sept 2026 · Draft Digital Government (Disclosure of Information) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I speak to my brief exchange earlier with the Minister. As the previous speaker, the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted, said, the draft regulations are fairly benign and very welcome to help people who are struggling with their bills. Fundamentally, however, when changing the law, it behoves us to understand who is within the scope of that change and what adverse impacts there might be as a result. A cohort of people will be just about managing to pay their bills, yet there will be a cost to this measure, welcomed though it has largely been by the Committee in the speeches so far. What is unclear to me, however, is the cost. For this measure to substantively help people with their energy debt in a meaningful way, one assumes a significant cost as a result of being able to share the data in order to write off those bills. Therefore, for the Minister to make the claim that it is helping—as she did—one assumes that she will know what the cost is of the change to the law that she has brought to the Committee. Given that, it also behoves us to understand who will pick up the cost of the measure. I was therefore surprised that in the Minister’s remarks, she did not touch on that cohort just above the other one—some people who can pay the addition to their energy bills without any difficulty whatever. We all represent constituents—indeed, the Government frequently talk about the pressure of the cost of living on them—who are just struggling. Indeed, they are those who, to coin a phrase, need some breathing space. They are just about affording their bills, but they will not be covered by the protections in the draft regulations; quite the reverse—they will be the ones who bear the cost. One assumes that the Minister has not brought in a change in the law without being clear about what the cost of that change is or what the impact might be on some of those struggling to pay their bills. In her wind-up, will she clarify those two figures? What is the cost of the amount of debt that is going to be written off, and how many people are potentially within scope of being pushed into that cohort because their bills will go up? We did not have those figures, but I hope she now has the inspiration from the Box to answer those points.

• 7 Sept 2026 · Draft Digital Government (Disclosure of Information) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  When I was reading the draft regulations, I was confused, because I thought they mentioned a Department that had been scrapped. It seems odd to bring in a change in the law for a Department that the Government have already scrapped.

• 16 Jul 2026 · Sir David Amess Summer Adjournment · Hansard source

  More

  Labour Members will recall the political pain that I am sure many of them faced when the winter fuel proposal was announced. It was put forward to save around £1.3 billion to £1.5 billion a year. They will also recall the angst, the ministerial resignations and the delay that occurred around the defence investment plan, which cost about £15 billion, less than half of which is actually new money—about £6.9 billion. It is very surprising that the Government propose to spend more on this building and this estate than they are spending on the defence investment plan. As a deposit, they are planning to spend more than half of what was put forward as a saving on winter fuel. If colleagues are surprised to hear that, I can tell them that of the four options being brought forward, even the cheapest is more than £10 billion. In a nice sleight of hand, though, all the works on the northern estate—which are essential to the restoration and renewal programme—are excluded. That is more than a further £5 billion over the next 10 years, and that is excluding the half a billion we have spent over the past five years just on preparatory work, before building anything. After spending half a billion on preparatory work, the National Audit Office said last month that the £3 billion that is being brought forward is to allow the programme to progress from four options to two. When the legislation was passed, it was with one option; after seven years and half a billion pounds, we have gone from one option to four, and it is now proposed to spend a further £3 billion to go from four options to two. As the headline figure is so large, however, the proposal is to commit £3 billion, but to lock in the next Parliament so that, in essence, it has no choice but to sign off a figure that this Parliament knows it will be highly reluctant to sign off. All of this is being done with no debate in this House, despite more than half the Parliament being new Members. This is not a new issue—I raised this point in the exact same debate last year, the Sir David Amess debate, and have raised it multiple times in the House. There has been no debate about these gigantic figures, despite the level of debate we have on other topics. The Government might say that this is a parliamentary matter, but it is not; it is the Government who will provide the money, and it is the Government who have the majority in the House. This is happening because, bluntly, there has been a breakdown in trust between officials—who are deeply frustrated with Members and peers because they feel that we have not set a clear budget or a clear timeline, and that the goalposts are being moved regarding the options—and Members and peers, who are frustrated because they feel that officials are not responding to concerns. In 2021, the Leader of the House said that this scheme was massively gold-plated, but the trade-offs are still not being addressed. Let me give just one example—that of the Lords roof. Although the Finance Committee does not cover R&R, we had a proposal this week on the Lords roof, which is work outside of R&R. An extra £1 million of costs was being incurred just because the Lords would not agree to finish at 10.30 pm. When I put that to Members of the Lords, they were completely unaware of that figure. I am almost out of time, but the point I want to make to the House is that these are huge numbers, and it is ridiculous that there has been so little transparency and debate. R&R is going to be a national scandal; I keep raising it, but nothing is changing. It is time that we had a debate in this House, made this issue transparent and brought some clarity to it, including a defined budget and a time limit, which I would set as one Parliament.

• 16 Jul 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation · Hansard source

  More

  When a Minister comes to the House on the last day before summer recess to announce proposals that his own MPs describe as “utterly unacceptable”, “sacrificing their communities” and “a disgrace”, and other proposals such as those for Cambridgeshire are put on hold, it is a clear sign of a flawed process. He has given no detail as to how long the delay is for Cambridgeshire or what the additional information he is now seeking is. Will he publish that today, or will residents in Cambridgeshire be left in the lurch over the summer, not knowing for how long this farce will go on, or what further information is being sought?

• 8 Jul 2026 · Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend is right to highlight the broader point, which is the lack of detail on reserves, other than to say that it is all being parked until the next Parliament. That is a wasted opportunity. Reservists also need clearer communication from the Government, including on the training days and reserve service days this year. I hope that when the Minister winds up the debate, he will say a bit more about that. Finally, we know that a Government reshuffle is coming, and if issues such as national resilience are to be addressed, they quite rightly require an all-of-Government response. Yet there is very little detail. As the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar said regarding the answer to his written question, the MOD is often reluctant to answer on national security grounds, and there is very little detail on how other Departments will prioritise their budgets and what the key performance indicators are, particularly when new Ministers are likely to be coming in. Will the Minister clarify whether there will be KPIs relating to the defence investment plan for those Departments, and if so, when will they be set out?

• 8 Jul 2026 · Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 8 Jul 2026 · Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  Could the Minister clarify why the efficiency target has gone up over 73% in a year compared with the strategic defence review? Was the SDR just too unambitious?

• 8 Jul 2026 · Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) has highlighted a number of pertinent questions that collectively pointed to the increased threat that we face. I also very much agree with the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca). There is a lot of common ground in the Chamber today. One example of that is that I agree fundamentally with the comment from the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) that we “must not underestimate the level of change that is required.” None of that detracts from the point that the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) highlighted in his opening remarks on the structural flaws in the funding allocated through the defence investment plan. The hon. Gentleman elaborated in more depth but, for example, less than half the headline figure announced is new money. Of the £15 billion announced, £6.9 billion over four years is new money, with £4.7 billion for the next budget, and £3.4 billion from asset sales and moving liabilities around. As he said, that is in addition to £10.7 billion of efficiencies. In addition to the hon. Gentleman’s remarks, I want to illustrate how the Government’s narrative contradicts itself with regard to the efficiencies; three Government documents, which the Government agree with, actually contradict each other. For example, on page 79 of the DIP we see the total resource departmental expenditure limit of £7 billion, from savings on staffing, and a capital departmental expenditure limit of £3.4 billion. Those are figures in the Government’s own annex, yet just last year on page 5 of the strategic defence review, the Secretary of State said, in no less than his own foreword: “We will unlock nearly £6 billion of new savings”. In a year we have gone from the Secretary of State saying, “We’re going to unlock £6 billion” to “We’re going to unlock over £10 billion.” As the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells alluded to, there is no clear plan and confidence is low. Confidence is not just low because the defence investment plan states that it is low, although indeed its working states “of which remaining plans at lower maturity” with £5 billion on RDEL and £3.4 billion on CDEL—£8.4 billion of low confidence. Let us look, too, at the independent findings of the National Audit Office. It is stated on page 10 of one of its most recent reports, from December 2025, that the accounts were qualified in a number of areas and that: “Lack of effective departmental oversight of a number of these arrangements has meant that the MOD did not have appropriate information nor assurance to ensure that transactions and balances”— blah-de-blah. In other words, the Department itself does not have a grip. Quite rightly, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak pointed to the scale of challenge, but we have a set of efficiencies in a 10-year plan that fundamentally contradict the Secretary of State’s own assurances just a year ago. The main point I wish to highlight—I say this as someone who has spent time in the Treasury, and I keep raising this point with MOD colleagues—is that I continue to be baffled as to why the Department is not highlighting and prioritising the reserves more than it is. Again, I think an area of consensus is the value of the reserves in delivering scale, and the fact that they are value for money as an option. Page 61 of the DIP just states £4.2 billion for reserves over four years—there is no breakdown, no detail, and no information, and it is not even clear if the training days and reserve service days for this year are secured. Can the Minister give us an assurance? Can he say what equipment will be funded for the reserves over the next four years? Can he give any colour on that, and can he explain why the reserves are not being prioritised more than they are? My next point speaks directly to the issue of national resilience that the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak correctly identified. Looking at the Red Book, £310 million has just been agreed for a digital campus in Manchester, and there is £1.196 million—£1.2 billion—on boiler upgrades over four years. But that is not enough, so the Government are extending that by £400 million this year, £600 million next year, and over £600 million the year after. I am not saying that those programmes are not useful—I am sure they are—but if the Prime Minister’s Munich speech is correct, and given comments from colleagues in the House, is this really the priority? Is £4.7 billion over four years on cycling and walking really this Government’s priority if we are to boost national resilience?

• 7 Jul 2026 · Early Release of Prisoners · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 7 Jul 2026 · Early Release of Prisoners · Hansard source

  More

  If this is an issue of practicalities, as we have heard, can we not assume that there might be common ground on the idea of withdrawing visas from those countries that will not take back their offenders? That would lessen the pressure to release as many prisoners as are projected to be released.

• 7 Jul 2026 · Draft West Midlands Combined Authority (Key Route Network) (Amendment) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I very much support the desire for the west midlands, like other places, to have consistency with mayoral authorities—but that is not what the Government are doing elsewhere. Take Cambridge: we have a metro mayor in Cambridgeshire and the Government have just announced a Greater Cambridge Development Corporation. That is on top of the Greater Cambridge Partnership, which also looks at roads, and on top of the county council, the district councils and the Oxford to Cambridge railway, which is another arm’s length body. Yes, it is right for WMCA to have clarity on what it is responsible for, but why is there so little consistency in areas such as Cambridgeshire, where residents find it very difficult to understand who is responsible for what, because more tiers of Government keep being added?

• 6 Jul 2026 · Environmental Protection · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister was just talking about metrics. Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden), will she say a little more about organised crime? In assessing the effectiveness of these changes, what key metrics would she apply to prosecutions relating to organised crime?

• 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?