Security Vetting

Steve Barclay Excerpts

Monday 20th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. That is irrelevant. Let’s move on.

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

In the readout of the Prime Minister’s meeting on 15 April on vetting, it states:

“There is no evidence that the decision to grant DV despite the UKSV advice had been disclosed to anyone outside FCDO and UKSV”

until the vetting document itself was shared with the permanent secretary of the Cabinet Office. Is the Prime Minister therefore saying that neither the Chair of the Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security nor the National Security Adviser were aware of the security risk with our most important strategic ally until the vetting document itself was shared with Cat Little?

[The Prime Minister]

I understand that to be the case. Obviously—[Interruption.] No, I am only saying that it was not my decision to withhold it. I understand, if I have understood Sir Olly’s position correctly, that his argument is that he cannot share it, or he could not share it, with anyone. That is as I understand it. It certainly was not shared with the National Security Adviser and I do not think it was shared with anybody else. As far as I know, until it was seen by my officials—legal advice was taken—and then shown to me, it was not shared with anybody else.

Cabinet Office

Steve Barclay Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Written Corrections

The following extract is from the urgent question on the Cabinet Office review into Labour Together and APCO Worldwide on 23 February 2026.

[Steve Barclay]

Can the Minister confirm that the new head of propriety and ethics was appointed without a fully open, competitive recruitment process, and that the outgoing head of propriety and ethics was promoted to permanent secretary also without a fully open recruitment process? If so, he will know that both those appointments were in breach of rules put in place by the last Government—by myself as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—unless an individual Minister signed off a waiver from the process. Can he say which Minister signed off such an exemption, and why patronage is preferred to open recruitment for such sensitive roles?

[Darren Jones]

I was not privy to those appointments, so I cannot confirm the exact details that the right hon. Member asks of me. What I can say is that the senior civil servant who is currently acting as the director of propriety and ethics is a temporary appointment subject to a full recruitment in due course, which is in line with the rules that the right hon. Member refers to.

[Official Report, 23 February 2026; Vol. 781, c. 32.]

Written correction submitted by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the right hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones):

Labour Together and APCO Worldwide: Cabinet Office Review

Steve Barclay Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

As my hon. Friend knows, Labour Together is a private organisation. It is a question for its board what it does in relation to its conduct. As I have said already to the House, any donations that have been received by individual Members, whether from Labour Together or other organisations, have, as far as I am aware, all been declared in line with the rules, and there have been no accusations to the contrary.

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

Can the Minister confirm that the new head of propriety and ethics was appointed without a fully open, competitive recruitment process, and that the outgoing head of propriety and ethics was promoted to permanent secretary also without a fully open recruitment process? If so, he will know that both those appointments were in breach of rules put in place by the last Government—by myself as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—unless an individual Minister signed off a waiver from the process. Can he say which Minister signed off such an exemption, and why patronage is preferred to open recruitment for such sensitive roles?

[Darren Jones]

I was not privy to those appointments, so I cannot confirm the exact details that the right hon. Member asks of me. What I can say is that the senior civil servant who is currently acting as the director of propriety and ethics is a temporary appointment subject to a full recruitment in due course, which is in line with the rules that the right hon. Member refers to.

Chinese Embassy

Steve Barclay Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

The right hon. Gentleman uses language that I think is inappropriate, unhelpful and inaccurate. I have made the point about consolidation, about the national security advantages and about this Government’s commitment to securing our national interests. Let me say one final thing. He is right to raise the case of Jimmy Lai. He knows the Government’s clear commitment that Jimmy Lai should be released immediately.

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

Does the Minister believe that the approval of this Chinese mega-embassy makes the British people safer?

[Dan Jarvis]

The right hon. Gentleman is very experienced from his own time in government, and he will know that difficult decisions have to be made. It is my judgment that, ultimately, this is the right way to proceed and that we have to engage with China for the reasons I have explained. Ultimately, nothing—nothing—will prevent this Government from ensuring our national security. That is why we have progressed this proposal incredibly carefully and made sure we have the right mitigations in place.

UK-EU Common Understanding Negotiations

Steve Barclay Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I thank my hon. Friend for the work that she does in the UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly, and I am grateful for the work that is done by that group more broadly. Clearly, there now needs to be the appointment of a national agency. I am sure the House will appreciate that it is a commercially sensitive matter, but I certainly hope to be doing that very soon in order to make sure that we have all that we need in place to support those who would like to participate from 2027. There will be great opportunities available, and I look forward to doing all I can as a Minister to support people into them.

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

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?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

We would expect the price to be £810 million. With the discount, it is £570 million. However, the right hon. Gentleman completely misunderstands the situation, because a substantial amount of that money will come back in the form of grants to our own people who are applying to be on the scheme. On his point about value for money, I have made sure that the argument about having a fair balance is embedded. That is the basis on which we will continue, but after 10 months there will be a review that looks at the balance between contribution and participation. If he wants to do something useful to address that balance, he could encourage his own constituents to participate.