Steve Barclay MP: speeches

Speeches

• 26 Jan 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  When I was in the Cabinet we were also responding to a global pandemic and to the energy inflation as a result of Ukraine. What I am highlighting is that we have an Armed Forces Bill under the hon. Gentleman’s Government in which the Minister is saying that reservists are critical. I am simply pointing to their record and their future plans. I am conscious of time, so I will move on to housing, which is covered in clause 3. Colleagues will know that just last April The Guardian reported the Prime Minister as telling the Cabinet that he wanted to stop outsourcing decisions to quangos, so it will come as no surprise to colleagues across the House that the Bill sets up yet another quango. In fact, the last Armed Forces Bill took a year to pass, so this quango will not be in place until more than halfway through the Parliament, on an issue which Ministers themselves could be making decisions on. The Prime Minister is telling his Cabinet one thing, and the Bill is doing the exact opposite. More importantly, the hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) spoke about how Ministers will have oversight of the new body in terms of the targets. I am afraid I have some news for him: I struggle to find any targets in the Bill. I asked the House of Commons Library what the targets were for this Parliament on housing, and the answer came back that there were none. There are no targets, and yet housing is apparently a huge priority. One could perhaps take comfort at least from whom the Government have put in charge of the housing improvements, as they have appointed a new permanent secretary, but the cross-party Public Accounts Committee published a report just last week—I have not had to go through the archives—in which its Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), says: “I have served on the Public Accounts Committee for twelve years. In all that time a 98% failure rate in a public sector initiative amounts to the most catastrophic fiasco that I have ever seen on the Committee”. The report itself says: “The Department designed the schemes in a way that exposes it to both poor quality work and fraud…There was virtually no attention from senior officials and the Department did not know whether the scheme as a whole was or was not working for at least two years”. It therefore seems a surprise that just three months ago, the Defence Ministers appointed the permanent secretary of that Department to be the permanent secretary of the Ministry of Defence, in charge of its flagship programmes, including a housing programme. I ask the Minister, had he read the National Audit Office report when the permanent secretary was appointed? I have a specific question for the Minister regarding clauses 28 and 29. Can he confirm whether any review has been conducted of Army discipline since the general election? If so, was it published, and if it was not, why not and will it be published before Committee stage? In his summing up, can the Minister explain how a Bill that speaks so much about the importance of the military covenant is consistent with removing protections from our Northern Ireland veterans? On the issue of veterans, the Minister announced Operation Valour last May. The Department took six months before it put out a job advert, and it has still not appointed or announced anyone in that post. Can the Minister advise the House why it has taken nine months to appoint someone and when that appointment will be made? Finally, where are the incentives in the Bill? Where are the incentives for employers to recruit reservists —where are the tax incentives and the join-up across Departments?

• 26 Jan 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Defence Secretary opened the debate by talking about the Bill taking significant steps to improve service lives, but the reality is that the rhetoric is not matched by the record. Let me take as an example the significant section of the Bill that is devoted to reservists. There are measures that I have no objection to: it allows the recall of those in their early 60s; it aligns the provision across the three services; and it has a new, lower threshold to recall based on warlike conditions, although it does not explain to employers what “warlike” constitutes so that they can know on what basis their staff might be called up. But the reality is that under this Government the number of reservists has actually fallen. It was over 32,000 in October 2023 and under 32,000 in October 2024. The number of training days has also fallen, from 1.3 million in 2023-24 to 1.17 million in 2024-25. The Minister for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) said that our reservists “are critical” and “absolutely central”: “Without them we cannot generate mass, we cannot meet the plethora of defence tasks”. If that is his view—and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) spoke about increased risks and the action being taken by other countries—then why is the number of reservists not increasing significantly? There might be those on the Government Benches who say, “Well, perhaps our record so far hasn’t been great, but don’t worry—the strategic defence and security review promises a 20% increase in our reservists, so perhaps it will improve in future.” First, that starts from a very low base of 32,000, so a 20% increase is around 6,500. Let us put that in context. Even the French—the French, Madam Deputy Speaker!—are more than doubling their number of reservists, and from a higher starting point. They are going from 46,000 to over 100,000 in the next decade. Many other countries have already taken action. The US has half its army and over a third of its air force in its guard or reserve units. Scandinavian and Baltic countries have also taken action. If we want to see what other countries are doing, we can look at the action the Germans are taking, as my right hon. Friend talked about, or at Poland’s defence spending We have a very weak target of 20% on a low threshold. What is worse is that the funding commitment to that is almost non-existent. The strategic defence and security review has no hard deadline, and it has the caveat “when funds allow, most likely in the 2030s.” Some might say, “Well, isn’t that just my view?” It is actually the view of the cross-party Public Accounts Committee. There are 10 Labour Members on that Committee. It is worth pointing out what that cross-party Committee said just a few months ago, in September: “The Strategic Defence Review (SDR) sets out the Department’s ambition to significantly expand the reserves’ role, including a 20% increase in numbers from the current 32,000 reserves when funding allows, most likely in the 2030s. However, the Department does not currently have funding or a detailed plan for how it will achieve this expansion.” That is a report from a Committee with a majority of Labour Members of Parliament. Let us be honest: it is not just on the issue of reservists that there is no action and little transparency on the funding. To give another example, we do not even have the defence investment plan published—it was promised last year. Given what my right hon. Friend said about the funding steps being taken by other countries, let us put that in context. How much money are we talking about? Spending on reserve pay last year, 2024-25, amounted to £135.3 million, with a further £32 million for bounty payments. The Department’s budget is over £60 billion. A 20% increase in pay and bounty payments would be £33.6 million. We have Government Front Benchers saying that this is critical, central and urgent, but we cannot find low tens of millions until the 2030s.

• 26 Jan 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister not accept that the number of reservists and the number of training days have both fallen on his watch, and that the sums of money to significantly increase them is modest relative to the £60 billion-plus that the MOD spends?

• 26 Jan 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is one of the most astute commentators on the Finance Committee, so I always genuinely listen to what he says. However, the point I am making is on the urgency to address this now and the relative modesty of the sums we are talking about to significantly increase the reserves. We are talking about tens of millions in a budget of over £60 billion. Therefore, if the rhetoric that this is central to our national security is meant, why is the action being delayed? To the hon. Gentleman’s point on funding, as a Former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, I know that pages 141 and 142 of the Red Book deal with the resource departmental expenditure limit, which I think is at £1.1 billion this year in cash terms, and the capital departmental expenditure limit is at £0.4 billion—so there is more money. From that £1.5 billion, if I was back in the Treasury I would be asking why tens of millions cannot be prioritised for this, if it is indeed a priority? If we do not want to look at the MOD budget, we could look at the £27 million the civil service spends on diversity and inclusion officers, or some other areas, such as the over £100 million a year those on the Government Benches voted to spend as part of the Chagos islands giveaway. My point is that these are relatively small sums, which give us scale in terms of our ability to respond at pace. Ministers are right to say that the reserves are critical, but their record is one in which they have failed to act, and there is no timescale to address those points. Just last month, the Minister told journalists that the UK is “rapidly developing” plans to prepare the country for war, and he warned that: “the shadow of war is knocking on Europe’s door once more”. How is that aligned with the approach of the Government in terms of failing to scale reserves, and in allowing their numbers to stagnate or even fall? I have a specific question to ask the Minister with regard to the article 3 commitment under NATO, on our ability to defend the UK. Will he confirm that for the duration of this Parliament the current level of manpower available in our reserves is sufficient to meet article 3 and cover all our critical national infrastructure, and that in reaching that judgment, he is not double counting reservists—such as those who are police officers, doctors, nurses or work in our NHS—who could be counted as essential in those tasks as part of our article 3 requirements?

• 20 Jan 2026 · Holocaust Memorial Bill · Hansard source

  More

  If the hon. Member will let me, I would like to finish. When all in the House agree on something, the question is whether the designs have been sufficiently scrutinised. Therefore, my plea to the Minister is to make a commitment to transparency and to communicating the pressures, which I foresee will emerge, in a very timely way.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Holocaust Memorial Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise briefly because I agree with both the tenor of the debate and the tone in which colleagues across the House have quite rightly highlighted the sheer horror of the Holocaust, the importance of remembering its sheer scale and the challenges particularly, as the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) highlighted, in the context of rising antisemitism, and as the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) mentioned, in having fewer survivors with lived experience here to share their stories. I want to address two points raised by the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). First, he raised a point that I surmise was on security, and I say to him that I simply do not know where the best site would be from a security perspective. It may be that somewhere between Parliament, which is obviously heavily secured, and MI5 would be an appropriate location for a site that will always carry security risks. It may be that other sites are better, and I defer to those with far more expertise than me. I note that the current Father of the House—like the previous Father of the House— has spoken about his concerns with the design of the memorial, which I think reflects the fact that he is a former Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, but I always have a slight concern. We obviously all agree on the principle, because it is important, and as the Member for Chelmsford said, after 11 years there is a need to make progress. I am not calling for delay—I certainly am not—because this is important, and we need to get on with it and to deliver it. However, it is fair to say that when the House is agreed on an issue, there is a danger that that issue is not sufficiently scrutinised. As I have said, the current Father of the House, like the previous Father of the House, has raised concerns. He speaks as a former Chair of the PAC; I currently chair the Finance Committee. The Finance Committee is not responsible for restoration and renewal—the House will come on to debate that—but I have already seen very serious concerns emerging around the challenges of the programme. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, have huge experience of the programme. Indeed, the programme has been repeatedly delayed and seen significant cost overruns. The design before us includes a significant proportion of construction underground in a very constrained site. I think the Minister opened the debate extremely well and I agreed with much of what she said, but it seemed to me that she is giving the trustees quite a lot of discretion, so I simply want to say how important it is, on this programme, that there is very real transparency about some of the challenges that I fear will emerge with the design, the construction, the risk of cost overruns, the constraints and the compromises. Can I bring that alive with one example? This site was constrained, and Parliament, as is its right, chose to vote to remove that constraint. On the R and R programme, I am told that the children’s education centre has to move because of an identical constraint. I suspect that the interaction of this programme with the R and R programme will come before the House in due course and raise some challenges. Indeed, the House has not even decided about such matters as what will happen to the education centre under the R and R programme. The importance of remembering the unbelievable horror of the Holocaust cannot be overstated—

• 20 Jan 2026 · Chinese Embassy · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister believe that the approval of this Chinese mega-embassy makes the British people safer?

• 19 Jan 2026 · Statutory SEND Duties: Intervention Powers · Hansard source

  More

  In the Secretary of State’s letter to me of 11 January, she said that the much-needed special educational needs school, Lime academy in March, could proceed if the Lib Dem county council responds by 27 February to say that it is a priority. Could the Minister confirm from the Dispatch Box that funding will be allocated for that priority school if the local authority, run by the Lib Dems, confirms to the Government its desire to do so?

• 13 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that new clause 9 would actually be helpful to Government Back Benchers? Given how frequently No. 10 is U-turning, including yet another U-turn on digital ID just today, having an assessment of the cumulative impacts will help them when they come to their next potential U-turn in this area.

• 12 Jan 2026 · New Medium Helicopter Contract · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister said that he welcomed the questions from my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) and my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), but he did not answer either; he did not tell us whether the defence investment plan will be published this financial year and he did not speak to the critical nature of a decision before going into the next financial year. He has explained missing multiple deadlines by simply refusing to give any further deadlines. Does he accept that this is a choice of this Government, without blaming the previous Government? If this Government can find additional funding for welfare, they could find additional funding to meet this contract.

• 7 Jan 2026 · Rural Communities · Hansard source

  More

  Go ahead.

• 7 Jan 2026 · Rural Communities · Hansard source

  More

  The irony will not be lost on farmers—in Norfolk and across the border in Fenland in my constituency—hearing the hon. Members for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) and for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) say how important farming is, after they voted for the family farm tax. That builds on a contradiction we saw at the general election. The Labour party said that it wanted to offer a new deal for farming, yet that new deal has — [ Interruption. ] If the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) wants to intervene she can, rather than chuntering.

• 7 Jan 2026 · Rural Communities · Hansard source

  More

  Of course; if the hon. Gentleman also wants to give me more time to speak, I will take a second intervention.

• 7 Jan 2026 · Rural Communities · Hansard source

  More

  The point is that the hon. Gentleman did not oppose it. There was also the opportunity to vote in the Finance (No. 2) Bill—there were two opportunities for the House to vote on it, and one should look at both votes to determine whether people were for or against it. That is a matter of public record. We have had a number of Opposition day debates on this policy and there have been a number of opportunities to vote in the House. People’s voting records, and their records on the family farm tax more broadly, are there for all to see. However, the Government have done a only partial U-turn on that policy, so if the hon. Gentleman wants to show that he is opposed to the tax, he will hopefully support future votes to remove it entirely. We have had only a partial U-turn, so there will still be an opportunity for him to go further. Of course, the family farm tax is not the only measure. We have also seen the sustainable farming incentive scheme stopped abruptly with no notice to farmers and no timeline for its reopening. We have also seen the farm to fork summit at No. 10—an important opportunity for the industry to have the ear of the Prime Minister—scrapped. We have seen schemes on productivity cut, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith) spoke about a whole range of wider pressures. All that builds on the fact that there was only one paragraph—on page 59—on farming in the Labour party manifesto. I turn to that paragraph first, because one of the few commitments the Labour party made was that 50% of food procured by the public sector would be locally sourced or produced to higher environmental standards. Given that a number of months have now passed since that manifesto, will the Minister commit to writing to me with a timeline for the implementation of that manifesto commitment? It could make a real difference to helping the farming community. The second thing I want to highlight is the report of Baroness Batters, who is widely respected across the House and certainly within rural communities. In her report, she makes 57 recommendations. I think it is regrettable that it was slipped out right at the end of the year before Christmas; it is a serious report that merits serious attention, as I am sure the Minister would agree. Given the pressures that colleagues across the House have spoken of, could the Minister update the House on the timeline for the implementation of those 57 recommendations? Thirdly, I want to touch on a theme that applies to both Opposition day debates today. Last year was characterised by a number of U-turns that the Government were forced to make on policies that the Prime Minister had asked his Back Benchers to speak about—not just on the family farm tax, but on welfare reform, the winter fuel allowance and national insurance, where the previous Budget had triumphed the fact that tax thresholds would not remain frozen only for the 2025 Budget to do exactly the opposite. We can already see a theme here, with a number of U-turns that are pretty foreseeable—one of them from the previous debate on jury trials, where there are widespread concerns. In farming, too, we can see a number of potential areas. The area I want to highlight in particular is rural pubs, and I commend The Telegraph for the campaign it has launched. I want to speak to the serious concerns that I am hearing from my rural pubs, as I am sure Members of all parties across the House will be hearing. I do not support the ban on Labour MPs from pubs; I do not personally think that is the right approach, as pubs are the heart of our communities and should be places that bring people together. I think the Government are making a serious mistake, and I would gently say to Labour Back Benchers that I foresee that this will be another issue on which they are marched up the hill only for their Prime Minister, under pressure, to change his mind. I think he will do it on digital ID and jury trials, and I think he will do it on rural pubs. We can save people a lot of anxiety if the proposals are changed.

• 7 Jan 2026 · Rural Communities · Hansard source

  More

  That is fine. I do not know if the hon. Lady was referring to an abstention as opposed to a vote against, but the reality is that only one Labour Member of Parliament voted against the policy. People’s voting records are there for all to see.

• 7 Jan 2026 · Jury Trials · Hansard source

  More

  That is not unusual.

• 7 Jan 2026 · Jury Trials · Hansard source

  More

  I would not say this of most of the debates that I attend in the House, but this one has been genuinely revealing, primarily because of what the Minister said at the end and the opening of her remarks. As the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) pointed out powerfully—he speaks with great professional experience on this issue—these proposals will not work. That is exactly what the Minister has been told by her own colleagues. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) described the proposals as “ludicrous” and said that they will not work. It is what she has been told by her own profession—her own colleagues in the legal profession point to the fact that these proposals will not work. That speaks to a conundrum we have considered in past debates on this issue: why is there such reluctance on the part of the Government to bring forward the impact assessment if they have already made this decision? If they have already taken the view that these changes will work, surely they want to present the evidence to prove that. As was pointed out earlier in the debate, if they will not publish the full impact assessment, surely they will publish the threshold—the minimum tipping point—on which this policy will be determined worth while, not least given how fundamental a change is being proposed. As the Minister set out at the end of her remarks, she would be making this change irrespective of whether there is a crisis in the courts. There we have the crux—the head of the nail that the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim hit—which is that this is an ideological change. That in turn opens up a second paradox: if the change is ideological, why was it not in the manifesto? Indeed, if it is ideological, why is it contrary to what the Justice Secretary said so many times in opposition? When did he have his change of belief to this new ideological position? Given the time limit, I will turn to a further contradiction. The Prime Minister has so often spoken about the need for more trust in politics, yet here we have a policy that marks a fundamental change after 800 years of legal precedent with no transparency or evidence that it will work, that was not in the manifesto and that is contrary to the remarks that the Government have made. At the start of her remarks, the Minister spoke about choices. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) pointed out with the list he gave and as my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) rightly identified, this will be a choice for Labour Back Benchers, and it is a choice that they are at risk of making only for the Prime Minister to then belatedly change his mind.

• 7 Jan 2026 · Ukraine and Wider Operational Update · Hansard source

  More

  The Defence Secretary refused to say when the defence investment plan will be published, and there is a tension between the statement about the immediacy of the growing threats and the lack of urgency on funding as other areas of Government are prioritised. Does he recognise that other nations are moving now on funding? Why are the Government so complacent on funding that they are prioritising other Departments over moving now on defence?

• 17 Dec 2025 · UK-EU Common Understanding Negotiations · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister’s statement did not seem to say what the contribution to the EU will be, but media reports suggest £570 million. By opening our borders, we will have youth workers and others coming to the UK at a time of rising unemployment. Could he confirm the amount that will be paid? Will it be more than what will be raised through the family farm tax, which the Budget said will only raise up to £500 million a year, even at the end of this Parliament?

• 15 Dec 2025 · NHS: Winter Preparedness · Hansard source

  More

  Given the pressures from flu and strikes, can the Secretary of State confirm that the evidence he gave to the pay review body remains correct—that any pay rises must be funded from within his Department? If so, given that the Office for Budget Responsibility says that inflation next year will be 3.5% and he has offered 2.5% across the NHS, and said that a 1% increase would cost £1.5 billion, does he intend to give NHS staff a real-terms pay cut, or to take £1.5 billion from headline Government commitments?

• 9 Dec 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The Office for Budget Responsibility shows that welfare spending will be £32 billion a year more at the end of this Parliament, just as a result of decisions in the last Budget. Why was the Chancellor not more honest in the Labour party manifesto about the choices she wanted to make?

• 8 Dec 2025 · Ajax Armoured Vehicle · Hansard source

  More

  While the problems with the Ajax programme are familiar, what we have heard today is quite extraordinary, because both the Minister and the shadow Defence Secretary have said from the Dispatch Box that they have been misled by officials. That raises questions for this House, because we should be able to rely on what is said by Ministers in good faith from the Dispatch Box. Has the Minister discussed this issue with the Cabinet Secretary? I agree with the Chair of the Defence Committee, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi): Members from across the House do not think that these problems apply only to this programme; they are more systemic. What the Minister and the shadow Defence Secretary have said is extremely important to how this House operates and whether individuals are held to account. What action will the Minister take with the Cabinet Secretary to address that?

• 8 Dec 2025 · Restriction of Jury Trials · Hansard source

  More

  The logic of the Minister’s argument seems to be that the Justice Secretary was repeatedly wrong in the past to defend jury trials, that many of her colleagues are wrong to have concerns, and that her own Government were wrong not to mention it at all in the Labour party manifesto. She has repeatedly refused to say whether she would publish modelling and referred to the impact assessment. Can she clarify this: has the work in the Department been done on the impact assessment and she simply will not publish it, or has it not done that work, in which case the claims she is making are without evidence?

• 8 Dec 2025 · Maccabi Tel Aviv FC: Away Fans Ban · Hansard source

  More

  After hearing the Policing Minister, I am slightly incredulous. In her last reply to a perfectly reasonable question from her own side of the House about the roles of UEFA and the safety advisory group, she said she is happy to go back and ask questions. She said in her statement that the mistakes were “alarming”—that is the phrase she used. This has been going on for weeks. The Minister has had a letter back from West Midlands police that she has not shared with the House before replying to this urgent question. She is saying that we will not have all the answers until the end of March, yet the Prime Minister is saying that this is a really high priority. Why is it taking so long to get simple answers on something that is of concern across the House?

• 3 Dec 2025 · Ely: Railway Upgrade · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister seems to be citing a lack of funding as the reason for the scheme not being funded, but when I spoke to the Rail Minister in his previous role as chair of Network Rail, it was a priority for Network Rail. Can the Minister confirm from the Dispatch Box that schemes with a worse benefit-cost ratio were funded in the spending review? In other words, did the Government choose to fund transport schemes with a lower BCR over funding the Ely junction?