Steve Barclay MP: speeches

Speeches

• 22 Apr 2026 · Army Reserve · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree. The Government say they are committed to tackling things such as the cost of living; everyone in the House is very worried about the growth in youth unemployment and other pressures, and we want society to come together in more integrated ways. The armed forces are a unifier within society, so the hon. Gentleman’s points are extremely pertinent. Let us look at this key point of reserve service days in the context of what has happened in the first two years of the Labour Government. In 2023, there were 1.339 million training days recorded; that dropped to 1.17 million last year. I am not trying to overstate the position—those are modest changes—but the direction of travel is wrong. Given the national security threats, the reserves are more important, and other countries are moving much faster on this. That is why I want to hear from the Minister a clear commitment to units up and down the country and to reserve service days. That is the most material issue that I want to flag in this debate. My third point, which I concede has been an issue for many years, is that there has always been a temptation to give a lower priority to the reserve estate and equipment within the MOD more generally. The Government are right to say that the reserves are really important, but following on from that we need ringfenced funding for equipment and the estate. I know that there are specific issues, and we have the reserve estate optimisation programme, but the funding for that this year is not clear. Perhaps the Minister can clarify that. Given the £3.5 billion efficiency target, the Department could be tempted to stray into such areas, but if someone is a reservist in the logistics unit and there are no vehicles, or is in an artillery unit and there are very few guns, that has a corrosive impact on morale and on wider defence capability. Let us look at how things have changed. The conflict in Ukraine is, in essence, a conflict between two reservist armies: reservists have been called up on the Ukraine side, and there are now reservists on the Russian side. We can see from the direction of travel just how important the capability of our reserves is. The Government are right to flag that, so it would be very odd if they were to cut reserve service days this year or if they did not protect the budget.

• 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?

• 5 Nov 2025 · Bronze-age Heritage: Cambridgeshire · Hansard source

  More

  I pay tribute to my Cambridgeshire colleague, the hon. Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes), for securing this debate. I am grateful that the Minister draws out that distinction. Must Farm, the 3,000-year-old settlement dubbed the “Pompeii of the fens”, is in Fenland in my constituency, yet the funding always seems to go to Peterborough next door. Some of that is logical, but will he clarify what share of this funding will go to Fenland residents so that they can benefit from a discovery in their local authority area?

• 29 Oct 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Indeed. The new clauses under debate highlight a wider principle that is driving much of the public frustration with the democratic process: the sense of people voting and then seeing decisions that they do not feel were on the ballot paper. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings was right that this is not just an issue with this Government; the Government in which I served were guilty of this. Too many decisions were outsourced to quangos. There are lessons to be learned from that, as today’s debate has highlighted well. Let me turn to two new clauses on which the House will divide. New clause 19 applies to something that unites the House: the horror at the murder of a police officer or prison officer. This is particularly pertinent to me, as I have the privilege of representing a constituency that contains a maximum security prison, HMP Whitemoor, where the safety of prison officers is paramount. The new clause is also important because we all benefit from the safeguarding provided by the police—in my case, Cambridgeshire police. What message do Ministers think is being sent not just to police and prison officers, but to their families, if they decide to vote against new clause 19? It is not enough just to tweet after events to say how sorry they are. The Government have an opportunity to vote to do something, and we will see in the Lobby how they vote. Finally, I turn new clause 20. I do not think that I was alone in being deeply moved by the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant). It is most effective when Members across the House, regardless of which party they are in, speak from their own deep professional expertise about issues that transcend party politics. Anyone hearing about Tony’s case cannot help but feel revulsion, horror and shame about the offence committed, and my hon. Friend spoke with such passion to highlight it. As a former Minister who has sat where the Minister now sits, let me say that I hope he reflects on the case put forward in new clause 20. I do not believe that any Members want to see loopholes exploited—to see people move around the country to evade accountability and the tracking of any future offences. When someone speaks with the sort of professional expertise with which my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and Malling spoke, to raise very practical concerns, it is important that Ministers take those concerns on board. The concern raised through new clause 20 is shared across the House. There is a defective element in this Bill, and Members have an opportunity to address it. The expectation is that there will be a vote on new clause 20. It is not about people’s words, but how they vote, that will determine the response. I hope that Members across the House will respond to new clause 20, bearing in mind the case of Tony, which was highlighted to the House, and that they will do the right thing.

• 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.

• 22 Jul 2025 · Gene Editing · Hansard source

  More

  I very much agree. I will come on to public sentiment towards gene editing, which is extremely favourable, but it is helpful to have cross-party support because this is a win-win, as I have said. It boosts yields, helps farmers and reduces the cost of pesticide. It is also a huge benefit to nature. The hon. Member is right to praise the John Innes Institute, which is world leading. That is another reason why we should seize the opportunity that science offers.