Steve Barclay MP: speeches

Speeches

• 30 Jun 2026 · Defence Investment Plan · Hansard source

  More

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

• 22 Apr 2026 · Army Reserve · Hansard source

  More

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

• 22 Apr 2026 · Army Reserve · Hansard source

  More

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

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

  More

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

• 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

  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?

• 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 · 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.

• 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

  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

  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—

• 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

  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.

• 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?

• 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?

• 1 Dec 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State opened this debate by saying that we should look at the backdrop of the general election, which was a surprising way for him to open discussion on the Budget, not least because a central theme of the Budget is Labour doing the very opposite of what it said it would do at the general election. That can be seen first and foremost with the £26 billion of additional tax—on top of the £40 billion in tax in the Government’s first Budget—when Labour said at the general election that it had fully costed proposals and that it would not need to tax working people. Indeed, Labour said at the general election that growth was its No. 1 policy objective, and yet what do we see in the official documents from the OBR? We see growth forecasts down every year of the forecast. Even the topic of this debate—“bearing down on inflation”—is the opposite of what the OBR says is happening, with inflation staying higher for longer as a result of the measures the Government have taken. Labour inherited inflation at 2%, and yet it is now forecast to stay at 3.5% next year and to be at 2.5% the year after. Indeed, on the topic of the cost of living, nothing hurts people’s incomes more than inflation, which pushes up bills and the cost of food and erodes people’s income. The Government also promised to deliver jobs, but we can see the consequences of their first Budget: the changes to national insurance—the jobs tax—have meant that unemployment has been up every month that the Government have been in office, and the graduate recruitment situation is the worst on record. In response to this Budget, the OBR forecasts that unemployment will be at 4.9% in 2026-27. This Budget is supposed to be “bearing down on inflation”, but inflation is up. The Government talk about addressing the cost of living, but people are being taxed more, and more people are unable to get a job. Graduates in particular are being hit. We can see the difference between what Labour said at the general election and what it is delivering. That all matters, because away from the big numbers—the billions that get quoted in Budget documents—are a whole series of individual measures that will bear down on people’s incomes and prospects. The Government’s measures will bear down on the small business owner who does not have the same security as a big public sector organisation, and who has put their own capital at risk; they will see a 2% increase in the dividend tax, on top of the corporation tax that they already pay. The measures will bear down on the pension saver, through the changes being made to salary sacrifice. The Government are also freezing income thresholds. It is interesting that Labour Members cheered a Budget in which the Chancellor did the opposite of what she said last year that she would do. Last year, she said that it would be a breach of the manifesto to extend tax threshold freezes, and that is exactly what she did this time. It is worth looking behind the headlines, and bearing in mind what the official data says this will cost: in today’s prices, by 2030, the measure will cost a higher-rate taxpayer £600 extra, and a basic-rate taxpayer £220 extra. Those decisions will have real consequences on people’s take-home pay. I represent a rural constituency, but this Government seem to dislike rural communities. We saw that last year with the family farm tax, and we are seeing it with the electric car mileage scheme, which disproportionately penalises rural communities. Again, that change was not in their manifesto. Looking at the consequences of the last Budget, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that national insurance changes are costing the average worker £900. These policies have real costs. The tax changes are being sold as raising more money for, among others, the NHS. At the general election, the Government said that they would end the resident doctors’ strikes, but another one has been announced today. The NHS Confederation has said that this is not a Budget for the NHS, and under the Budget, an estimated £3 billion extra in drug prices will have to be absorbed. An announcement has been made that standards may be changed so that real mental health funding is flat, and just goes up in line with inflation, which is not the change that the Government promised.

• 1 Dec 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  Clearly the hon. Member has just had a text message from the Whips Office. The reality is that the Government inherited inflation at 2%, and it is currently at 3.6%, and the OBR—the independent forecaster—forecasts it to be 3.5% next year. It takes a certain genius to intervene to show that the Government are going in the wrong direction. This Budget is presented as being transformative for the NHS and for other services, but take community services; community health services in all our constituencies are hugely important. Waiting lists have been at about 90,000 since the general election, particularly for children, but we do not hear too much about that from the Government. We have heard very little in this debate about productivity, so let me close with one example. Last month, the Health Foundation said that there was only a one in six chance of the Government achieving the 2% annual productivity growth target that they set. Members might wonder why that matters. If productivity growth is at 1%, it will cost an extra £9 billion a year for the NHS. There is only a one in six chance of delivery, but if the Government do not deliver, there will be a very significant cost to the NHS. This Budget puts up tax on working people in order to pay more in welfare. We can see that in a whole series of measures. We can also see the gulf between what the Government said at the general election and what the Chancellor has delivered. She has not even been consistent with what she said in her Budget last year.

• 29 Oct 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Bill illustrates a wider theme that we see across a number of debates in the House, which is the gap between the Government’s words and how they vote. Indeed, that is illustrated by a number of the new clauses that colleagues on the Opposition Benches have already spoken to. New clause 14, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford), highlights the inconsistency within the Labour manifesto that sets out a commitment to give 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote, but then says that even if they commit an offence so serious that it warrants a custodial sentence of four or more years, that person is too young to be named. I asked the House of Commons Library to clarify that. A custodial sentence of four or more years is not given out lightly by the courts, particularly not to those of that age, and it said that this would involve serious sexual offences, murder, or armed robbery. We see tweets from Members of Parliament when a boy or girl is stabbed to death, but Labour Members are not willing to vote to name those who commit such offences. It is wrong to deny victims transparency when such serious offences have taken place, but it is bizarre to do so when also saying that those same people are old enough to vote at that age. Such inconsistency is not limited to new clause 14, so let me take a second example of new clause 18, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan). Many people now look at the Labour manifesto and say, “Well, what it said on energy bills isn’t what they have done; what it said on council tax isn’t what they have done; and what it said to farmers is certainly not what they have done.” With the Budget coming soon, I think that we will shortly see that what Labour said on tax is not what this Government are about to do. And yet the front page of that Labour manifesto had a single word on it: “Change.” I do not think that most voters realised that what Labour meant was change from the manifesto itself, as opposed to change in terms of policy—

• 22 Jul 2025 · Sir David Amess Summer Adjournment · Hansard source

  More

  Hiding in plain sight, but not discussed in this Chamber since the general election, is the spending of millions of pounds on the repair of this building, with Members expected to commit later this year to spending billions of pounds into the future. The lack of debate or any meaningful transparency comes despite the majority of Members of this House being newly elected last July. Instead, the detailed costs and any vote on options are being delayed until later this year—ironically, they will probably come at around the same time that the House is expected to vote on a Budget, which many people expect to include tax rises. Members of the House, and members of the public, might reasonably ask why the Leader of the House has not held any such debate since coming into office. This issue speaks to a wider principle. Are decisions best formulated in private when some of the numbers remain uncertain, with reliance placed on internal controls and external advisers giving assurances, or is it better to have transparency—not least on an issue of great public interest? A lesson that, as a Minister, I learned from covid is that it is better to have transparency and an open debate about the trade-offs early than to hold discussions in secret and allow the benefit of hindsight after the event. Supporting greater transparency has been a theme of my time in the House, whether in my initial four years on the Public Accounts Committee or when as a Minister I overruled official advice to disclose information to the National Audit Office during covid. Since being elected as Chair of the House’s Finance Committee, I have repeatedly raised concerns in private about the financial management of the House and the multibillion-pound restoration and renewal programme, but I feel it is necessary to raise these issues on the Floor of the House today. Before doing so, I place on record my thanks to Mr Speaker, because I know he cares deeply about taxpayer value—an issue he has championed on many occasions. I want to reassure Members that I will not disclose any information I have received in my role as Chair of the Finance Committee or in a private capacity. The crux of the issue is that there needs to be a complete reset of the R and R programme. The books need to be open to the public, and we need to bring the public into the debate about how we balance the needs of a world heritage site with modern security, accessibility —for example, for those with a disability—and value for money. Updated costs need to be presented. Currently, millions of pounds are being spent working up multiple options, despite our now being in the fifth year of this work. Indeed, those options are gold-plated, often based on decisions taken by Members who are no longer in the House. There is remarkably little visibility of this issue. The most recent costs presented go back to 2022, and even then the cheapest option was £8.6 billion to £13.8 billion, with others costing more, and that is without inflation and with no other significant additions. Those costs exclude the work Members will see on the northern estate, which is not part of the R and R programme, yet the public would associate the two, not least because that work is a key part of any decant. We also know that there are precedents for costs increasing massively. If we take the example of the Elizabeth Tower— the most recent example in this House—the costs started at £29 million and finished at £89 million, which is a 209% increase. If we look at this morning’s news, we can see how the costs of Sizewell C have increased. There are known risks in plain sight. In its first report, the National Audit Office cited changes to programmes as a key risk, yet we know that the sponsor body set up at the start has been scrapped. We know that we started with one option and then went up to two and then three, but with A and B options, so in essence we have four options. Who knows, but there could be a fifth on the way. The governance is opaque. Let me give the House an example. The key body that oversees the programme has met only once this year and only twice since the last annual report. However, if we look at what is in the public domain, the first paragraph of the annual report says that “the R&R Client Board and R&R Programme Board will mean sufficiently robust and detailed information will be available to the new Parliament to support decisions on the way forward for R&R.” We have not debated it once, and the governing committee has met only once this calendar year. I am conscious of the time, so I will canter through some of the other issues. In short, security is often presented as a reason for not being transparent, but I would draw Members’ attention to the very welcome intervention by Baroness Smith in the House of Lords in her exchange with Lord Hayward about the Carriage Gates, which cost £9.6 million. I am told that they still do not work particularly well. Just last week, this House debated a mistake that was made by an official in the Ministry of Defence, with Members complaining about both the cost to the taxpayer and whether that was covered up. How confident are Members that no similar examples exist? I simply ask Members: are they aware of the costs of the work on the northern estate, of the trade-offs and how they are being shaped, or of the cost of any delay? How confident are they that when they are asked to make such decisions alongside a Budget, they will have the information they need? I will finish with one final example. Just as with High Speed 2, hiding something in plain sight involves producing lots of brochures and lots of literature. Colleagues can see that one of the recent quarterly updates states on page 4: “R&R Surveys…ONGOING… Budget…ONGOING… Develop House of Commons…Plans…ONGOING… Costed proposals…ONGOING… Invitation to tender…NOT STARTED”. It includes no meaningful information. Indeed, the annual report has financial information only on the final two pages, pages 29 and 30. This is not a new issue. Lord Morse, in his 2022 report, noted: “Parliament has a historically poor reputation for its contract management and commercial acumen.” I believe issues should be shared with the public, the trade-offs discussed, and Members of this House, particularly new Members, given sight of these issues. I have called repeatedly in private for there to be greater debate. Today, I want to do so on the Floor of the House.