Steve Barclay MP: speeches

Speeches

• 15 May 2025 · Solar Farms · Hansard source

  More

  To understand this Government’s approach to solar farms, one should start by re-reading the Labour manifesto —page 59 of the Labour manifesto to be more precise. I know that it was only a year ago, but in its solemn promise to the British people, it said: “Labour recognises that food security is national security. That is why we will champion British farming”. That may now seem a long time ago, because a succession of announcements from this Government have made it clear that there is no commitment to farming or to food security. Indeed, that applies to many of their other commitments—smash the gangs, council tax bills will not go up, or energy bills will come down. On food security and its importance to national security it is clear that it was a fake promise. Indeed, there is an irony here, because we still have the ongoing covid inquiry. I was Chief Secretary to the Treasury at the time of covid, and it was clear to me that at a time of national crisis, value for money changes; there is competing demand across nations for scarce resources. I assure Members that, at such a crisis point, food security becomes an issue of national security, which is why the carelessness of the current Government on their manifesto commitment matters so much.

• 3 Apr 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  The Active Learning Trust is closing the sixth-form Neale-Wade Academy, which will be harmful to social mobility in Fenland. Given that the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) raised a similar point, may we have a statement on what action Education Ministers and the regional schools director can take to ensure that the Active Learning Trust, about which there are serious questions, puts in place a recovery plan and is much more transparent about how its decisions are reached?

• 3 Apr 2025 · Waste Incinerators · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I welcome the debate called by the hon. Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker); it highlights the cross-party consensus in opposing further incinerators. In terms of the Wisbech incinerator, it is remarkable that an application to build an incinerator half the size was rejected in the local authority next door, so the response of developers was to double the size in order to make it a nationally significant infrastructure project, to get out of the local planning rules; to put it next to the biggest school in the district—only 700 metres away; to take waste from six different counties, all on small roads in a rural market town; and to have a chimney bigger than Ely cathedral in the flat landscape of the Fens. One can understand why so many people share my concern with the proposal. I do not want to repeat the very good points that colleagues have made. I want to highlight two new points that the debate has not highlighted so far, which I hope will help Opposition and Government Members and support my own case in empowering the Minister. First, I will cite the Government’s own figures. On 30 December —quite recently—the Government’s own analysis showed that as of 2024 there was already 20.6 megatonnes of residual waste infrastructure capacity in England, of which 14.3 megatonnes was incineration. To put that in plain language, we already have enough incinerator capacity today to deal with the amount of waste that was projected in 2023 to arise by 2035—19.4 megatonnes of residual municipal waste. In other words, our existing capacity, at over 20 megatonnes, is more than we will need in just nine years’ time. My first question to the Minister is whether DEFRA will commit to publishing analysis assessing the environmental damage of building incinerators, such as the huge incinerator at Wisbech, against the fact that they will be surplus to requirements in as little as nine years’ time. In other words, it will three years to build the incinerator, and after six years of operation it will be additional capacity to what we will need. We therefore need to assess how those two things compare.

• 17 Mar 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak to clause 9 and the important issue of looked-after children, which I think Members from across the House care about greatly. It is for that reason that the Bill is so disappointing, because there are missed opportunities on supply and demand, and particularly on my concern—I represent a rural constituency with cheaper housing—about the concentration of looked-after children in particular communities, which the Bill’s regional commissioning fails to address sufficiently. I will take those issues in order, starting with supply. In Committee there was a lot of discussion about profiteering, and I am sure the Minister will respond to my pointing out that the Bill is silent on addressing the real and probably shared issue of how we boost supply by pivoting to talk of the profit clawback. My concern about the profit clawback is that when the Minister comes to claw back the money, he will find that it has long since moved. It would perhaps be helpful if the Minister could clarify the estimate that has been given to the Treasury for how much the Department expects to recover in clawback, because the Opposition suspect that it will not be particularly effective. Likewise, there are missed opportunities in the Bill for reducing demand, and I very much echo the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) in Committee about boosting foster carers—an issue that is frequently debated in this House. I accept that is not a panacea for all the issues affecting looked-after children, particularly those needing secure accommodation, but one would have expected the Bill to go further in that regard. It is also the case that what the Government are doing about unaccompanied child migrants is further exacerbating demand. I draw the Minister’s attention to the 2023 Home Office research, which shows a massive increase not only in the number of unaccompanied child migrants, but in the number of disputed cases where people claimed to be children when there was concern that they were adults. In half of those cases—49%—the individual was found to be an adult. That is further stoking demand, and it is very regrettable that the Government are not taking action and, indeed, are reversing some of the safeguards put in place by the previous Government to reduce demand. Again, clause 9 is silent on those issues. Given that I represent a rural community, my third and main concern is that regional commissioning risks being further detached from local communities where there is cheap housing, and where there is therefore a temptation to further concentrate looked-after children, in a way that does not join across the Government’s silos with areas such as police funding and housing. I will give the House a specific example. Because Cambridgeshire has had significant population growth but the police funding is based on the population in 2012—that is how the police grant is calculated—commissioning does not pick up the additional pressures that the Cambridgeshire force is facing, particularly in its rural communities. Those pressures are exacerbated where we have looked-after children with a troubled history interacting with the criminal justice system, and where there are challenges around unaccompanied child migrants. Nothing in this Bill says how regional commissioning interplays with the formula for police funding, even though the data I have from Cambridgeshire police is very clear that a significant proportion of their time is spent as a consequence of this policy. An example of that are the requirements on the police when a child goes missing, which is rightly an issue of significant concern. Of course that is something for which the police should prioritise time, but having a concentration of care homes in rural communities can require significant additional resource. Clause 9 fails to address supply and demand. What will be done about the fact that it is further divorced from the rural communities where commissioning is often placed? Given that the Government are hammering rural communities in so many areas—not least farming—how will they reassure my constituents in Fenland that the failure of the money to follow looked-after children sufficiently is going to be addressed? I will finish with one example from the recent data coming from councils. The Home Office reimburses councils for their spending on children under 18, at a rate of between £114 and £143 a day. On 15 February this year, councils reported that the payments from central Government do not cover all the costs. The risk is that rural communities, which have been hammered by this Government on farming and in so many other areas, will have to pick up the police costs, the health service impacts and the other impacts on public services that come from more distant regional commissioners, which is exactly what clause 9 risks doing. It would be helpful if the Minister could say a little bit more about that when he comes to close the debate.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Local Government: Nolan Principles · Hansard source

  More

  Where there are bad behaviours, that often results in significant legal costs to the local authority and settlement payments. The Government are giving more powers to combined authorities. Does the Minister agree that where a combined authority incurs significant legal costs and settlement payments relating to staff who have left, whether employed or interim, that information should be shared in a timely fashion with board members? If so, will he write to me to confirm that that is the Government’s position?

• 11 Mar 2025 · Local Government: Nolan Principles · Hansard source

  More

  Can I press the Minister on that point? Does that transparency include sharing those settlement payments and legal costs with the authority’s board members? It strikes me as remarkable if those costs are not even shared with board members. He has very helpfully clarified that he expects transparency. I would like that transparency to be with the public—perhaps he can say something on public disclosure—but can he at least confirm that the information should be shared with board members?

• 5 Feb 2025 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

  I commend the Minister for the constructive way in which he addressed my question, but I think it important to be clear. He seems to be saying that as a result of this settlement, a number of councils will be worse off. We understand the context, but I think he has just confirmed expressly that councils will be worse off as a result of the tax rises that the Chancellor has imposed and which this settlement does not fully meet.

• 5 Feb 2025 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

  We saw one area of consensus when the Minister responded to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) about internal drainage boards, and I welcome his recognition of the problem in areas such as Fenland in the Cambridgeshire fens. That was a pertinent point, and I thank him for his comments. Will the Minister take this opportunity to tell us whether any council will be worse off when this settlement is netted against the additional costs of employer national insurance contributions and those of their suppliers? According to reports that we have been given, a number of councils will be worse off. Can he rule that out?

• 19 Jul 2024 · Planning, the Green Belt and Rural Affairs · Hansard source

  More

  Of course we respect the science. The hon. Gentleman chunters from a sedentary position, but I presume he will get the same science brief—in a way, he makes my point—that I got from the chief vet, which was that the vaccinations were not ready and the cull was being effective. In fact, we only need to look at Labour’s policy in Wales, where the opposite is happening, to see that. I hope that, as he represents Cambridge, he will follow the science, because the Government made a commitment that does not. Perhaps that is the sort of change they mean—a change from what they committed to in the manifesto. It did not take long. Speaking of things at a high level that no one can disagree with, the Government talk about making more use of public sector procurement. Again, the Conservatives not only agree with that, but we have helped the Government with it. The former Member for Colchester did a fantastic review, the Quince review, looking at how that will be done, but the Government are silent on the funding for that. Will it be funded out of the budget of the Department for Health and Social Care, the Department for Education, the Ministry of Defence, local government—or will it come out of the Secretary of State’s budget? It is difficult for him to say, because he does not even know what his budget will be. The reality is that we have empty slogans from a party that does not care about the rural economy. The Government are not giving clarity to farming and fishing; they barely mentioned farming in their manifesto, and they did not even mention fishing. This King’s Speech does nothing for the farming and fishing communities. The decisions that we have seen so far take vast amounts of farmland out of food production in order to prioritise the eco-zealotry that we have heard so often in this House. I hope the Secretary of State will give the clarity that is sadly lacking in the King’s Speech on what the Government will do—and when—on the budget, on food procurement, and on dairy farmers and the badger cull, and will end the uncertainty that the president of the NFU and so many others in the farming and fishing community currently face.