NHS: Winter Preparedness

Steve Barclay Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

It is one thing for the BMA to have rejected the offer we made; it is quite something else to have done that following a 28.9% pay rise—but we are where we are. The thing that I find utterly inexplicable and indefensible about the BMA’s position is that we offered it the chance to extend its strike mandate to the beginning of February, in order that strikes could be delayed into January, to give the NHS a clear run at an extremely difficult and challenging winter and the most challenging time of the year for the NHS. The only reason the BMA is choosing this week to strike is that it knows it will inflict maximum damage on the NHS, but in doing so it risks avoidable harm to patients. That is unconscionable, indefensible and unnecessary, and I ask ordinary members of the BMA, whatever their views on the offer or this Government, to bear that in mind when deciding whether or not to leave their patients this week.

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

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

UK Health Security Agency: Porton Down

Steve Barclay Excerpts

Wednesday 21st May 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Glen]

I am extremely grateful for that very helpful intervention, because the hon. Gentleman points out the co-location of DSTL and the UKHSA at Porton, and that is a really important fact. The possibility of sharing category 4 facilities—something that has been resisted sometimes by one party or the other—is a material consideration when trying to mitigate excessive costs.

Last year’s NAO report set out that in February 2022, the programme had a staff team of 92 full-time equivalents based across multiple sites including Porton Down, London and other regional UKHSA centres, working across programme operations, management, delivery and capability, in addition to construction, finance and commercial and leadership teams. In November 2023, there were 69 FTE staff on the programme. The programme team is made up of civil servants and service providers, and has input from colleagues from other parts of the UKHSA.

It is very ironic to me that as I read over about 13 mentions of Porton Down that I have made in this Chamber over the last 15 years, so many of the Ministers who responded are now either retired, deposed or in the other place. I am concerned that the civil service people, for whom I have great respect having worked closely with lots of civil servants, have been blissfully unaccountable to any enduring authority or direction on this, while all of this work has been going on in the background. That just cannot be right.

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

As one of the ex-Ministers who is still here, perhaps I can contribute in a spirit of helpfulness to the current Minister. My right hon. Friend and I have discussed this issue many times. I was so concerned by this proposal as Secretary of State for Health and Social Care that I visited Porton Down and gave a very clear steer—not least when I found, to my huge surprise, that the nursery was being closed, which I thought was the wrong decision. He, like me, was Chief Secretary to the Treasury. As Chief Secretary to the Treasury, I gave a very clear steer that I was concerned that this move did not represent value for money, that times had changed and that the proposal was in error. I wonder whether the case study that is being presented to officials and the information that comes to Ministers properly reflects known concerns raised by Ministers, which appear to have been routinely ignored.

[John Glen]

I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend; I recall the many conversations that we had on this matter.

How can we be in a situation where £530 million—Public Health England’s initial estimated cost for the whole programme in 2015—became an estimated £3.2 billion in 2023? I am not sure if that is the very latest figure. Of even greater concern to me is the fact that it was estimated in 2015 that the project would be completed by 2021, yet the best estimate now is that it will not be fully operational until 2036 at the earliest, which is 11 years away. That is if the programme remains at Harlow.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ashley Dalton]

I can assure my hon. Friend, and the House, that all considerations will be taken into account when this decision is made. As I have said, the Government are thoroughly assessing options, including all those that have been raised. Two main options are under consideration: to rebuild and refurbish some facilities at Porton Down and its sister site at Colindale in north London, or to build an entirely new facility in Harlow, Essex. In either event, the staff working in the defence, science and technology laboratory at Porton Down will remain there, and even when a decision is made on those options, nothing will happen overnight. Complexity and rigorous scientific requirements mean that completion will take more than a decade, which is why we continue to invest in maintaining our current site and facilities at Porton Down, with £38.1 million allocated for capital investment in the recent spending review.

The Government are committed to ensuring that we retain the ability to carry out the vital functions of UKHSA Porton Down. Members, the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee have all advocated for an urgent decision, but identifying the right site that delivers on this mission, while ensuring best value for money, is a complex decision and one that we must get right. I can assure the House that extensive discussions are taking place between UKHSA, the Department of Health and Social Care and His Majesty’s Treasury to inform a decision, and I can confirm that this decision will be taken as part of the spending review, which will conclude next month.

[Steve Barclay]

Having had the opportunity to be involved in spending reviews, I would be interested to know the current provision for this scheme in the budget over the next three years, because alongside assessing the benefits, there will be the simple question of what is affordable. The NAO has set out an estimate of over £3 billion for the overall cost, but what has the Department provisioned for the spending review period?

[Ashley Dalton]

I do not currently have the detail on that, but I will write to the right hon. Gentleman following this debate. I can confirm that he knows as much as I do about what might be in the spending review, because those decisions have yet to be made, but more information will be made available as soon as possible.

As the Secretary of State said earlier this year,

“The worst decision is indecision”,—[Official Report, 13 March 2025; Vol. 763, c. 1295.]

and this Government are committed to sorting out this issue once and for all. A decision will be made in a matter of weeks. In anticipation of that decision, UKHSA is taking steps to prepare to remobilise the programme at pace. It recently invited the Government Internal Audit Agency to conduct a short review of its remobilisation plans as part of its commitment to ensure that there is maximum transparency and rigorous assessment of the programme. The agency has also obtained advice from the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority.

I am sure that colleagues from across the House share my view that the work conducted at Porton Down is critical to protect the country. The recent pandemic put into sharp focus how this work is fundamental to keeping us all safe. Although there is still the outstanding question of how we can best preserve the facilities for the country, whatever decision we take will be made in full consultation with the staff at Porton Down, whose critical skills are highly valued by us all.

I thank the right hon. Member for Salisbury again for raising this vital issue, and all Members who have intervened in the debate. I commit to updating him on progress once a decision is made.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Steve Barclay Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2025 General Committees

[Karin Smyth]

I thank the hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members for their support for the regulations. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point regarding care at sporting and temporary cultural events. We all remember the awful events at Manchester Arena and the lessons to be learnt from there. Although there is some good practice in healthcare provided at some of these events, there remain examples of poor, unregulated healthcare that does not sufficiently protect members of the public, so it is right that the CQC has oversight of the sector.

I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s points about proportionality—that is essentially the word I would ascribe to these measures. People need to be assured that there is safety and some proportionality, and I think those points should be taken on board for the next phase of this work. If we need to come back to him specifically on that or write to him about how it proceeds, we will absolutely do that. We all want to support events in our communities and support the volunteers and people who come forward for such things. They are a really important part of the fabric of our lives, so I think it is very important that people have assurances around that.

I will have to come back to the hon. Gentleman on the further questions that the he asked about the CQC and the fit and proper persons test. As he rightly says, they are not a matter for this SI, but as the work goes on and as we listen to our colleagues in the other House, and their debate about the Mental Health Act in particular, there will be a number of issues that we want to make sure are dealt with properly and that will come into the next phase. We will endeavour to make sure we update him on progress with that work as well.

Patient safety is a top priority for us, and the CQC plays an important role in ensuring that providers meet the standards of care that we expect for the public—patients, carers, and families and loved ones. Its purpose is to monitor, inspect and regulate health and care services and make sure that providers meet the fundamental standards of quality and safety.

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

The Minister quite rightly raised the important issue of patient safety. In October, the Government appointed a new boss of the CQC. The Minister will be aware that, in January, following a BBC investigation and whistleblower evidence, families alleged serious wrongdoing regarding a number of baby deaths at the hospital of which the new CQC boss had been chief executive for the past 10 years. Can the Minister say how that has been factored into the appointment of the new CQC boss or whether the families, in the view of the Minister, were wrong in the concerns they raised?

[Karin Smyth]

In appointing Sir Julian Hartley, proper processes were conducted. He was seen to be fit and proper to lead the CQC, and we have confidence in his ability to do so.

[Steve Barclay]

He was appointed in October. Whistleblowers, the BBC investigation and families have raised concerns regarding maternity services at Leeds. The Minister will be aware that there is renewed scrutiny of maternity safety and rightly so. That is a key issue for the CQC. Were the families wrong in their concerns? What has the Minister done to investigate them? Quite rightly, she highlighted the point of patient safety.

[Karin Smyth]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point about maternity care, which is very sadly an issue of concern in many places across the country. Of course, those patients and families are absolutely right to call out poor care where they have seen it. It is absolutely right that that is fully investigated, and that is what we would expect at Leeds and in other places around the country.

The CQC’s leadership in ensuring that we have safety and confidence is critical for the role. On that basis, we would like to move forward with this SI to remove the expiry date in the 2014 regulations, to amend the five-year period and to ensure that health and care providers continue to be required to register with the CQC and comply with the fundamental standards set out in the 2014 regulations after 31 March this year. We also want to make sure that services continue to be required to provide a safe and high quality standard of care.

Question put and agreed to.