Steve Barclay MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

  Of course, but I am sure that he, as a constituency MP, would diligently lobby his colleagues in the appropriate way to take action. I would also think that the Housing team as a whole would share his view that where a developer in the constituency that he represents has behaved in a way that has led to a £7.8 million fine, that might be within scope of the decisive action talked about in the Labour manifesto. What I find remarkable is that the Minister does not seem to know. She has come to the Committee today to present legislation, and when she answered the question asked by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough, I did not hear her mention a single firm that was on the prohibitions list. I therefore followed up with a specific question, to try to help her out. I asked about the Comer Group because that is one of the most high profile ones; it was raised before the last election by her own colleague, and she does not even know about the Housing Minister’s own concern. We are being told today that this is an opportunity to take action against developers who have failed to do the right thing on critical fire safety issues, yet two years in the Minister cannot update the House on any decisive action that has been taken. The Department is saying publicly that it publishes regular data and we are here debating the legislation today and colleagues are being asked to vote on it. Again, there is nothing in this legislation that I disagree with. Cancelling out a double negative and giving a bit of clarity in the language is all fine and well, but what a wasted opportunity! Why is the Minister presenting legislation without knowing the basic facts, such as how many developers have been put on the prohibitions list? She has had time for her officials to give her a note. I hope that when she sums up the debate we will get the number of firms on the prohibitions list and specifically whether the Comer Group is on it. The officials have their laptops open. I am sure they can send an email to the Department—

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

  More

  The Government’s own documentation contradicts what the Minister has just said. Sections 9.1 to 9.4 of the explanatory memorandum to the Government’s SI present the draft regulations as not requiring an impact assessment, and say that these are purely minor technical changes that will have no impact on business, charities or voluntary bodies. However, when we look on the Government’s own website, it is interesting that there seem to be no firms on the prohibitions list. The Minister will be familiar with the Comer Group, for example, which was subject to a very significant fine of £7.8 million in Greenwich for what Greenwich council described as a “mutant development”, in the home constituency of the Minister for Housing and Planning. Has the Comer Group signed up to the scheme? If not, why is it not on the prohibitions list?

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

  More

  I am grateful that the Minister will write to me, but I simply point out to the House that this development was so notable that the Housing Minister raised it in opposition—he tabled parliamentary questions on this issue and flagged it in advance of the election. Two years on, it seems odd that Ministers do not know what has happened with it. In reference to the question asked by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough, can the Minister name a single firm on the prohibitions list? If she cannot do so, given the fact that before the election the Government said they wanted to move quicker on this issue, why have they not done so?

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

  More

  Hopefully we can get an update on that, Sir Edward.

• 25 Mar 2026 · Victims and Courts Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The point I was highlighting was the inherent contradictions in the Minister’s remarks. Even now, in her summing up, she has said that the Government are going to go further in 2027, but in her opening remarks she said that they cannot go further because there are technical impediments. The point is that there are inherent contradictions in the Government’s narrative.

• 25 Mar 2026 · Victims and Courts Bill · Hansard source

  More

  That’s patronising.

• 25 Mar 2026 · Victims and Courts Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It would be easy for anyone watching the proceedings, with not many Members in the Chamber to discuss these Lords amendments, to think this is about some technical issue or minor point of debate, but the votes today really do matter. They matter to victims, who are currently charged often thousands of pounds for the transcripts of the court hearings in which they were involved. They matter for the transparency and openness of our legal system. They also matter to the public, because on this very issue over 200,000 people signed a public petition, which was debated in Westminster Hall on Monday this week. Although people may think these are just Lords amendments, this is an important set of votes. I gently say to the Minister that her speech did sound a bit like an episode of “Yes Minister” in that her remarks were, “I fully support giving victims more rights, and that is why today I’m going to vote against every one of the amendments to do so.” As she was speaking, I wrote down some of her phrases. She said that this is “a Bill for victims”, as if the amendments made in the Lords are not meant to empower victims, when they clearly are. She said that she wants to “go further”. It is no wonder her own colleague, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), said she was “confused”, and she was not the only one confused by a Minister saying that she wants to go further by voting against amendments that would enable us to go further. The Minister justifies that inconsistency by saying she needs to consult more, including with the judiciary, as if the Government have been ambushed by their own legislation. They control the timing of this Bill and they brought it to the House, but then they say, “Oh, actually, the timing’s not right, and we need more time to consult.” They themselves are legislating and they control the time, so if they needed to consult, they could have done that in a timely fashion. The Minister said she accepts the challenge of the pressure that the 14-day period puts people under, especially given the interplay with the 28-day window for the unduly lenient sentence scheme. Just to explain that in lay terms, if people want to appeal a sentence that they feel is unduly lenient, they have to do so within 28 days. However, if they cannot get access to the transcript in a timely fashion, their ability to do that is severely constrained. The Government control the legislation and its timing of its introduction, yet they are going to ask Labour Members to vote against these amendments. Is it any wonder they keep U-turning, because they are saying one thing and then they are going to vote to do the opposite today on the basis that at some point in the future they may come round to doing what they say they want to do at the moment? The Minister says that more cannot be done now, pointing to reasons of technical issues and constraints, while also saying that the Government are overcoming those constraints in relation to sentencing remarks. Again, there is no “can do”. There are lots of things in a court bundle ahead of a court hearing—witness statements, and a huge amount of other documentation—and vastly more information could be shared with victims in a timely way, yet such discussions do not seem to have taken place. It is no wonder that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) called what we are getting instead “waffle”. We have been told we are going to have guidance, work on awareness and—that Government catch-all—a code, as if that is a replacement for actually giving victims access to the transcripts they want. The crux of the issue is that the Government are introducing this legislation, but those in the Lords have quite rightly scrutinised it and seen that there are constraints on the timescales. The Government do not dispute that; they accept that there is a good case for victims to have more access to transcripts. Indeed, on Monday in Westminster Hall, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards), said: “There is an issue of transparency regarding court transcripts”. —[ Official Report, 23 March 2026; Vol. 783, c. 39WH.] Is it not therefore bizarre that the Government will ask their own Back Benchers to vote against doing something about what they accept is a real issue for victims of crime?

• 25 Mar 2026 · Victims and Courts Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister gives the fact that she needs to consult as a reason for turning down the Lords amendments. Is the usual approach not to consult before bringing the legislation, not to bring the legislation then consult afterwards?

• 24 Mar 2026 · Defence · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that one way to respond to a crisis and to deliver mass quickly would be to scale up the reserves during this Parliament? Does he find it surprising, as I do, that the relatively small cost—in a £60 billion budget—of scaling up the reserves would help to deliver some of that response?

• 23 Mar 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The Government are making top-up payments to asylum support enablement cards, but have refused to answer my written parliamentary questions regarding how many payments have been made and how much is being spent. That is even though that is information the Department must have. It is held digitally, and the accounting officer under chapter 3 of “Managing Public Money” has a duty to demonstrate that such payments constitute value for money. Can the Home Secretary say why she is covering up this information?

• 23 Mar 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  There is a glaring contradiction between the Defence Secretary’s statement, which refers to “taking the necessary action to strengthen our collective defence,” and announcing to the House that we will have another recess without the defence investment plan. Does he recognise that last year the Defence Committee, which has a majority of Labour Members on it, said that “demand signals will not exist until the Defence Investment Plan is published”? At a time when so many of our allies have invested in defence, does he not recognise that delaying the plan is likely to stoke inflation, undermining the spend as and when it comes?

• 23 Mar 2026 · Court and Tribunal Transcripts · Hansard source

  More

  It is not surprising that the Minister is setting out the concerns that MOJ officials have no doubt raised with him about reporting restrictions and accuracy in the text, which are all valid. However, there is a danger that the perfect becomes the enemy of the good. I have two specific points. First, to what extent could the judge, as the trial proceeds, earmark packages of documents, audio recordings or other information that could be made more readily available, rather than the perfect being the enemy of the good? Secondly, the Government have made a lot of passing a duty of candour. Is the duty of candour complied with if the cost of obtaining a transcript is so high that the victim simply cannot afford it, or if it arrives after the 28 days that my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) spoke about?

• 23 Mar 2026 · Court and Tribunal Transcripts · Hansard source

  More

  Over the years, I have often found that when the Members on each Front Bench agree on an issue, there are dangers for Parliament, not least because legislation is often insufficiently scrutinised. Conversely, when the Back-Bench Members of each of the parties agree, it is often—it certainly was when I was a Minister—a warning sign that the Government of the day need to move. What has been uplifting about the debate we have heard so far, with evidence from those on the Government Benches—the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols), who spoke very powerfully, and the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash)—as well as from my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) and the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), has been the consensus that this is a burning issue of concern to our constituents. It clearly is a burning concern, given the volume of respondents to the petition—has more than 200,000 signatories, which signals how much this matters. I do not want to divert away from today’s debate but, given the restriction of access to jury trials and that direction of travel from the Government—a direction that I regret and indeed many on the Government Benches appear to regret—the opportunity for the Government to move more quickly on transparency and transcripts is even more pertinent that it would otherwise be. I am speaking in this debate because I am keen to hear from the Minister about where he sees the sticking point. My sense from the Government’s comments today has been that they are broadly sympathetic to the direction of travel—I think the Minister is nodding his head to indicate that, and I have no reason to believe otherwise. It would be helpful, given that he and the Government are sympathetic, to understand how the House can support them in moving more quickly, and in particular whether the constraint is one of legislation. As we know from past debates in this place, this House can move very quickly on legislation when it so desires, particularly if there is cross-party agreement. Indeed, the hon. Member for Richmond Park indicated there was agreement in the House of Lords as well. If, then, the constraint is legislative, there are ample opportunities for us to address that at pace. If it is contractual, I suspect that the sums are relatively modest, given the prize on offer. It would be helpful to understand what the contractual costs would be if one were to try to terminate or to vary the agreement. Indeed, where there is significant cross-party political pressure, it is surprising how suppliers, perhaps with a view to other contracts in future, may be willing to amend a contract. If the restrictions and difficulties for Ministers are technological, we saw in the covid period that, with a clear enough demand signal from Government, it is surprising how quickly technology improvements can be put in place when there is the will to do so. But I fear that what is at fault here is not this Minister, but the slow pace at which Whitehall is in the habit of operating. That is why it is important that in this debate we support the Minister and the direction of travel that I think he wants to go in, while understanding where the blockages are. I have a few quick questions. First, given the Government’s support, as I understand it, for the recording of proceedings in court, to what extent could audio clips, either in whole or in part, be made more quickly available? If there is some concern with the accuracy of the AI, for example, are there other ways of solving that? Where can we start, rather than waiting for the whole thing to be resolved? Secondly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley touched on, witness statements and huge numbers of documents are produced as part of the discovery process in court. Court bundles—a huge number of documents—are prepared in advance of court hearings. It strikes me that much more could be done to make those available, particularly to the victims of crime, than is the case now. What assessment has been made of which parts of those court bundles could be made available? Thirdly, what exactly are the technology constraints? Again, looking at the progress in other areas of Government and commitments made by the Prime Minister about AI in No. 10 summits recently, why can we not move more quickly than the slow pace at which the Ministry of Justice appears to be operating? That is particularly pertinent because of the point my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley made about the 28-day time limit for appeal. That is a hard deadline, and yet, as he sets out, decisions often take a while to come. The cost is prohibitive, and people are not able to get the information they seek in a timely fashion ahead of the deadline. My sense is that the Government want to move in that direction, so I hope the debate today has signalled the cross-party consensus to do so. When the Minister sums up, I encourage him to clarify exactly where the blockages are. If he reads the Institute for Government reports, he will see that Ministers have a habit of moving very frequently. Those on the Government Benches who are seen as talented often move very frequently indeed. He has an opportunity during his tenure in the Ministry of Justice to move quickly, to take advantage of the cross-party support and—at a time when his own Government are restricting access to jury trials—to do something that will be hugely helpful to victims, and something that the public have signalled they want very much.

• 23 Mar 2026 · Court and Tribunal Transcripts · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. I fully support the case that he is making for full transparency, but in the spirit of “I’ll start by starting”, he touched on witness statements that would have been prepared beforehand but were still not available. If the Minister accepts the principle around greater transparency, does my hon. Friend agree that certain aspects could immediately be made much more available, while some of the other technical discussions are taken in parallel?

• 19 Mar 2026 · International Development · Hansard source

  More

  I support prioritising hard power over soft power to protect our national security. In her statement, the Secretary of State drew a direct link between additional defence spending and reducing the development budget, but that was the exact opposite of the position put forward by the Prime Minister when he was in opposition. In Hansard , on 13 July 2021, when the previous Government were reducing aid from 0.7%, he made the exact opposite case, saying that reducing overseas aid made us less secure and that we needed to continue with 0.7% to keep us safe. Does she accept that this is yet another example of the Government saying one thing in opposition and doing the exact opposite in office, ignoring the concerns raised by the Chair of the International Development Committee and others about the trade-offs that are quite normal to make in government?

• 19 Mar 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  On Tuesday evening, a car with five teenagers left the road near Wisbech in my constituency and entered the river. Tragically, only three of the teenagers exited the car. I am sure the whole House will join me in sending our condolences to the families affected by this tragedy and the emergency services who are performing the distressing recovery. In “Fit for the Future: 10 Year Plan”, the Government set out three big shifts for the NHS. The first is in care services moving from hospital into the community, yet the exact opposite is happening in Fenland, both at the North Cambridgeshire hospital site and the Doddington site, where services are being reduced and moved to hospital settings. May we have a debate on whether this is the latest Government U-turn that they have not yet announced, or are health bosses free to ignore the strategy and do the exact opposite locally?

• 19 Mar 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  After a serious pollution incident, the Environment Agency produces a help report, which is shared with the Secretary of State’s officials, so she would have been notified of the category 1 pollution incident—the most serious rating—that occurred in September 2024 at Stanground, near Whittlesey in my constituency. No prosecution has been made, however. Why not?

• 18 Mar 2026 · Flooding: Rural Communities · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister invited hon. Members to present pain points, so perhaps I can share one from my time in her Department. Natural England’s gold-plating of some of its statutory objectives often seemed at odds with the ministerial steers that were given. Does she feel she has sufficient control over the direction of Natural England in delivering the sort of actions that I am sure she discussed at the taskforce?

• 18 Mar 2026 · Flooding: Rural Communities · Hansard source

  More

  I also commend my hon. Friend for raising this hugely important topic, and she is right to highlight the importance of local voices. Local voices know best where the flood risks are. They are most at risk and have real skin in the game, but they often feel that bodies such as Natural England and some parts of the Environment Agency are not responding. There are also the internal drainage boards, particularly in the east of England—in Norfolk, Cambridgeshire and Lincolnshire. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to see more from the current Government about how they are going to work proactively with the drainage boards, particularly on some of the capital funding requirements that they face?

• 23 Feb 2026 · Labour Together and APCO Worldwide: Cabinet Office Review · Hansard source

  More

  Can the Minister confirm that the new head of propriety and ethics was appointed without a fully open, competitive recruitment process, and that the outgoing head of propriety and ethics was promoted to permanent secretary also without a fully open recruitment process? If so, he will know that both those appointments were in breach of rules put in place by the last Government—by myself as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—unless an individual Minister signed off a waiver from the process. Can he say which Minister signed off such an exemption, and why patronage is preferred to open recruitment for such sensitive roles?

• 11 Feb 2026 · Police Grant Report · Hansard source

  More

  As the Minister is getting into the detail of the funding package, will she accept two broad points? First, the overall number of police officers in England has fallen on Labour’s watch. Secondly, because of cost pressures on police forces from other decisions taken by her Government, the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners has said that there is a £500 million shortfall in the allocation of funding from this Government to police forces.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 27 Jan 2026 · Draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  Can the Minister explain why his impact assessment says opposite things on the same page? In respect of the £92 million direct net cost to business, on the one hand, it says: “our working assumption is that all costs are incurred to business, with no indirect impacts to households.” In the very next paragraph, it says: “we estimate that cost-pass through for most sectors could feasibly be at 80-90%”. Both those things cannot be true, can they?

• 27 Jan 2026 · Draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way again?

• 26 Jan 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Further to the previous intervention, the covenant is predicated on veterans not being disadvantaged by their service, as the Secretary of State will know. However, Northern Ireland veterans will be subject to records that do not apply to civilian terrorists. Will he confirm that there will be no disadvantage to Northern Ireland veterans, and that the covenant will apply to them as originally intended?