Army Reserve

Debate between Jim Shannon and Steve Barclay

Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

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.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member on securing this debate. I declare an interest as a former reservist for 11 and a half years. I used to have hair then—that is how long ago it was. He will be aware that as of 1 January 2026, the trained strength of the UK Army Reserve was some 23,740, a decrease compared with 1 January 2025, and its total trained strength has continued to decline over the years.

I always try to be constructive and helpful to the Minister and the right hon. Member who secured this debate. Does the right hon. Member agree that we need to invest in the cadet forces, particularly those attached to schools across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and encourage our young people to train as reservists while still pursuing their career choices?

[Steve Barclay]

I know that the hon. Member has a long-standing commitment to the cadets and the military in general. The cadets is a recognised pipeline into the armed forces, and I am sure the Minister recognises its importance in giving people their first taste of military experience. Again, I think that is an area of agreement.

The first point I want to land is that in the first two years of this Government, the number of reservists has fallen overall, if we take the quarterly statistics published in April that give the numbers to January. The current record does not match the Government’s words. My second point is on reserve service days and this year’s commitment—

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Barclay]

Again, there is a lot of agreement in the House about these points. With that in mind, I will suggest a couple of potential solutions—I always think it is better to come with solutions than with problems—and ask the Minister for an update.

First, it would be great to have a clear signal to units about reserve service days. Secondly, the Minister will be familiar with the case of Major Milroy, which goes to the issue of fairness. The Government have lost twice in tribunal. There was a debate on that case a couple of months ago, so it would be helpful to have an update. Thirdly, Labour Members often talk about the perils of zero-hours contracts, but of course reservists are often in essence on zero-hours contracts. It would be interesting to know whether the Government are considering a statutory underpinning for employers’ commitments.

[Jim Shannon]

On the comments by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), I recall my time in the Royal Artillery during the Falklands war. This relates to the issue of whether a person can retain their job should they be sent to the front. We were not going to go to the Falklands, we were going to go to Germany, and the frontline troops were going to go to the Falklands—but that did not happen, because the numbers were there on the ground to make sure that it did not. I remember going to my boss—I worked at Henry Denny at the time—and saying, “Mr McCluskey, it looks like we might be called up, and I’ve been told to let you know. The reason I am telling you is because I understand that you have to retain my job, so that when I come back, I will get my job back.” In the society we live in, it is important for employers to understand that they have an obligation to their employees.

Gene Editing

Debate between Jim Shannon and Steve Barclay

Tuesday 22nd July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the future of gene editing.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I secured this debate as gene editing provides immense opportunities to the United Kingdom in boosting growth in our agricultural sector, in supporting our world-leading life science industry and in better protecting our environment for future generations. Being able to diverge from the European Union on the regulation of gene editing is a genuine Brexit opportunity, but there is much concern that the Labour Government’s EU reset will pause or even reverse the progress made in the UK in setting out a new path to regulate that exciting technology and, in doing so, will sacrifice a key opportunity to help our farming community.

Almost all our domestic animals and plants are the result of thousands of years of selective breeding. Gene editing is best thought of as a modern enhancement of that technique. It is often referred to as precision breeding. It allows scientists to make changes to a plant or animal’s DNA, cutting the DNA strand and then adding, deleting or altering sequences to give beneficial traits, which make for things like disease and drought-resistant crops, or indeed more nutritious crops.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the right hon. Gentleman for securing the debate. This is an incredibly important issue to the farming community that I represent and those across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. He is presenting some incredibly interesting facts. Does he agree, however, that we must be careful in any consideration of the future of gene editing to maintain a boundary between gene therapy and gene enhancement? We must ensure that we are not generating superhuman traits, as opposed to seeking to cure genetic traits, which is something we can all agree on. The key issue, as he says, is the issue of drought and disease-resistant crops, which are critical to the farming community.

[Steve Barclay]

The hon. Gentleman is a champion of the farming community. He and I, in my previous role, often discussed farming issues, and we both hugely support the importance of food production as a key part of our food security. He is right to draw attention to the fact—I will come to this—that gene editing and gene modification are often confused, when they are very distinct. The crucial point to share with the House is that the changes in gene editing are limited to those that occur naturally or through conventional selective breeding. That is the distinction I will come on to with gene modification. By using gene editing, we can get to a desired trait more quickly. Science therefore accelerates something that could happen naturally, as opposed to being an artificial intervention.

Let me give an example of how gene editing can provide a win-win in practice in our farming community. I represent North East Cambridgeshire, which is the centre of UK sugar beet production. That crop has been severely impacted by virus yellows disease. At the moment, the only way to tackle it is by using a seed treatment, Cruiser SB, which is toxic to pollinators such as bees. Given the downsides for nature, the treatment needs to be granted emergency authorisation on a year-by-year basis. The last time that the authorisation was not made available was in 2020, and 25% of the national sugar beet crop was lost. Without authorisation of something that is accepted as damaging to nature, the crop fell by a quarter, which is a severe consequence.

That led to an economic loss of about £67 million, in an industry involving 10,000 jobs. After some years of approval the current Government have decided that authorisation will again not be available in 2025, which has left the sector with a lot of uncertainty. But instead of requiring us to choose between nature and crop yields, gene editing provides a better solution. Under the previous Conservative Government, a £660,000 grant was made jointly to British Sugar, the agricultural biotechnology company Tropic, and the world-leading plant science institute, the John Innes Centre, to fund gene editing research into sugar beet resistance to virus yellows disease.

Environment Agency: East of England

Debate between Jim Shannon and Steve Barclay

Wednesday 4th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the performance of the Environment Agency in the East of England.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I have secured this debate to highlight concerns about the operational performance of the Environment Agency in the east of England. This reflects both my time as the Secretary of State overseeing the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in the run-up to the general election and numerous interactions with it in my capacity as a constituency MP.

As we are meeting the week before a comprehensive spending review, it is perhaps prudent to start with the usual excuse given by organisations for poor operational performance: a lack of people or funding. According to the Environment Agency’s own annual outcomes, its full-time equivalent staff increased in the last Parliament by 21% from 10,791 in 2019-2020, at the start of the Parliament, to more than 13,000 in 2023-24. Over the same period, its expenditure has gone up from £1.4 billion to £2.2 billion, so it has significantly more people and funding, while at the same time showing a remarkable lack of transparency or accountability to Ministers or Members of Parliament, and a remarkable lack of willingness to take enforcement action against those causing the worst levels of environmental damage.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the right hon. Gentleman. It is an absolute scandal: the Environment Agency seems happy to pursue farmers and landowners with a zest and enthusiasm, yet big businesses and other people seem to be left to the side. Is it not time that the Environment Agency supported farmers and helped them when they need it, rather than chasing them and not others?

[Steve Barclay]

The hon. Gentleman raises an extremely important point, and he is correct. It seems that the Environment Agency is very happy to go after what it may perceive to be easier and more law-abiding targets, but as the most serious environmental harm is caused by serious criminal gangs, there is often a reluctance to take on those organisations in the way that it does an individual farmer. That is why this also points to a need for a much more fundamental reform of the Department’s relationship with its arm’s length bodies, as well as its accountability to Ministers, regardless of which Government is in office.

This debate is focused specifically on the east of England, and I want to give three examples of where that operational performance really illustrates concerns across the boards with environmental damage being caused. Before doing so, given that I have been the Secretary of State, I thought it relevant to touch on a national example to show that this is not simply a constituency or local issue. With that in mind, let me inform the House about Hoad’s wood, which is a site of special scientific interest and an area of outstanding natural beauty that has been covered—as you probably know, Sir Roger—in more than 35,000 tonnes of illegal waste.

We might have thought that a SSSI would be a priority case for the Environment Agency, and one where it would be most certain to take action. However, so concerned was I as a Minister that I had to take the very unusual step of issuing a ministerial direction. No ministerial direction had been issued in the Department in the preceding seven years before I arrived as Secretary of State, so this was an unusual but necessary step to compel the EA to take action on a SSSI. Again, I think that speaks to some of the issues. Even so, the situation has dragged on, with contractors not appointed until November last year, work not beginning until March and completion not expected until at least 2026. That points to some of the issues with the most valuable sites, never mind more routine sites.

Support for Pensioners

Debate between Jim Shannon and Steve Barclay

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon]

Yes, it is disappointing, and I cannot ignore that fact. I always like to think that good people come together, reach out and try to address those issues, but the hon. Gentleman is right that they should not have to.

In September 2023, NEA undertook a Northern Ireland-wide representative survey to assess the impact of energy prices on households. The survey found that 41% of households in Northern Ireland were spending at least 10% of their total household expenditure on energy costs, and were therefore in fuel poverty. The continued pressure on household budgets has led to a rise in detrimental coping mechanisms. Those systems that should be in place to help are clearly unable to. For example, 19% of households told the survey that they had gone without heating oil, gas or electricity in the past 24 months because they were unable to afford energy. One in 10 households admitted to skipping meals to ensure they had enough money to pay for energy. Others have referred to that.

The pensioners I speak to are vulnerable, have complex health needs and have disability issues. Sometimes they have no family. As others have said, they have to look after themselves, but they are unable to. That dismays me greatly. Data shows that close to one in five households over over-60s are now in such severe fuel poverty that their homes are being kept in a condition that “endangers the health” of the inhabitants.

What happens when someone cannot heat their house? The house deteriorates, the mould grows and the damp grows. It is a fact: people have to have a level of heat in their houses; otherwise, they will deteriorate. That is an impact that is perhaps not often seen. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East will remember the debate this morning in which a constituent was mentioned: an elderly person, over 70, who was living in a house with a leak in the roof. He did not have the ability to fix it, had no family to fall back on and did not qualify for any grants for it. The deterioration of houses cannot be ignored.

Fuel poverty among pensioners is dangerous and must be addressed. I recently went to the home of a lady who was applying for attendance allowance. I am no better than anybody else, but I know how to fill in forms—I know how to do all the benefit forms, and I have done them for umpteen years; I know how they work, and I know the right words to say on behalf of a deserving constituent. When I was on the election trail in July, going round the doors, I acquired between 80 and 90 attendance allowance forms. Those constituents did not qualify for pension credit, but we were able to get them on to attendance allowance, as I will explain with one of my examples. Those forms take at least an hour to fill in, and I have a staff member who does nothing but fill in forms five days a week—sometimes six.

Let us be honest: I am no spring chicken any more. I am a pensioner and I will be reaching quite a significant figure shortly, but I am pretty strong. I think I am strapping, although I am not sure whether my wife agrees—she is the one who really matters. I know that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East has a great interest in shooting; I could probably stand shooting for the best part of the day in cold weather, as long as the pheasants and the pigeons kept coming over my head.

[Steve Barclay]

Not only standing, but I recall that in the debate on Monday, the hon. Gentleman was sitting next to the Minister, such was the pressure on seats. Given that none of the Minister’s colleagues have bothered to come to the debate, perhaps he might consider sitting over there again and giving the Minister a little company.

As other hon. Members did, the hon. Gentleman is talking quite rightly about the speed and the targeting of the policy. The point is that it was a choice. There is a debate to be had about universal benefits and targeted benefits, but the speed with which it was done meant that some of the targeting, such as for pension credit, was not addressed. That has caused the cliff edge that hon. Members on both sides of the House have spoken about, so that if someone is just over the threshold, they lose out entirely.

On choices, the Government have chosen to fund not just the Chagos deal, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) said, but the above-inflation pay rises to trade union workforces such as train drivers. The hardship cases set out by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and others show that this issue is not about a wider debate on the economy, the mistakes made in the Budget or their effect on our growth projections, but about choice. The Government have chosen to give money to their other priorities—but before the election, they told pensioners that they would choose to prioritise them.

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)]

Order. The right hon. Member is a man of great of experience and he knows that this is an intervention, rather than a speech.