Steve Barclay MP: speeches

Speeches

• 9 Jun 2026 · Draft Marine Licensing (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment etc.) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I fear that I may have read the legislation a little more closely than the Minister. Some media reports suggest what compliance with this regulation would involve for a company. We are talking about conducting an environmental impact assessment beyond national jurisdiction and significant further work. The cost of complying with the EIA requirement could run to a couple of million pounds. For me, the question is not the international ambition—of course everyone in the House wants our marine environment to be protected—but why the Minister is today introducing legislation the cost of compliance with which will be 10 or 20 times the cost of the fine for non-compliance.

• 4 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Mr Speaker, as long ago as September 2024, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was notified of a category 1 incident, the most serious category of pollution incident, which occurred near Whittlesey in my constituency. When no prosecution occurred following the incident, I raised the issue on the Floor of the House in March and the Minister promised to write to me. When no response was received after a number of weeks, I escalated it to you, Mr Speaker, in a letter at the end of April. The Department committed to a reply by 8 May. We are now a further month on from that date and still there has been no reply. If the Government have changed their policy and are no longer prosecuting the most serious category 1 water incidents, should that change of policy not be notified to the House, or is it that Ministers simply, despite repeated requests, have no idea what is happening in their own Department?

• 22 Apr 2026 · Army Reserve · Hansard source

  More

  It is worth putting on the record that there are many good employers who recognise that. At the same time, we want to make it as easy as possible for those willing to be reservists to do so. I want to flag that and some of the consistency across Government. I will come on to some solutions. I talked about the context of the £3.5 billion efficiency savings this year—the money is next year, 2027—and the pressure of that. I remind Treasury colleagues that reserve pay and bounties is less than one quarter of 1% of the MOD budget, which is why this area of MOD spend brings a lot of bang for its buck. I also remind the Minister of the 2009 Guardian front page, when Gordon Brown had to intervene because that past Labour Treasury was straining to make savings in this territory. That caused such angst on the Government Benches at the time that the decision was U-turned. I know this Government do not particularly want to U-turn—that would be a heresy in the current climate—but it may be helpful for the Minister to get ahead of the argument with Treasury colleagues. We are talking about a very small sum of money in an area that offers real defence capability. It is not the most fertile political terrain for the Treasury to strike. The Minister will know better than most in this House about the NATO commitments in article 3 and how we meet those—the reserves are key to that. And I am sure she has seen the excellent paper from Professor Vincent Connelly and Hamish Mundell, part of a series by the Royal United Services Institute, highlighting the importance of this area and why we in this House should focus on it.

• 19 Mar 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  After a serious pollution incident, the Environment Agency produces a help report, which is shared with the Secretary of State’s officials, so she would have been notified of the category 1 pollution incident—the most serious rating—that occurred in September 2024 at Stanground, near Whittlesey in my constituency. No prosecution has been made, however. Why not?

• 18 Mar 2026 · Flooding: Rural Communities · Hansard source

  More

  I also commend my hon. Friend for raising this hugely important topic, and she is right to highlight the importance of local voices. Local voices know best where the flood risks are. They are most at risk and have real skin in the game, but they often feel that bodies such as Natural England and some parts of the Environment Agency are not responding. There are also the internal drainage boards, particularly in the east of England—in Norfolk, Cambridgeshire and Lincolnshire. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to see more from the current Government about how they are going to work proactively with the drainage boards, particularly on some of the capital funding requirements that they face?

• 27 Jan 2026 · Draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 27 Jan 2026 · Draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  Can the Minister explain why his impact assessment says opposite things on the same page? In respect of the £92 million direct net cost to business, on the one hand, it says: “our working assumption is that all costs are incurred to business, with no indirect impacts to households.” In the very next paragraph, it says: “we estimate that cost-pass through for most sectors could feasibly be at 80-90%”. Both those things cannot be true, can they?

• 27 Jan 2026 · Draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way again?

• 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.

• 22 Jul 2025 · Gene Editing · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and that builds on the earlier intervention on public support. One of the sweet spots of this area of policy is that it is beneficial to farming—because it cuts costs on things like pesticides and increases yield—but it is also hugely beneficial to nature, in terms of climate change. It is also beneficial for the public purse, because gene editing is a way of using science, in essence, to drive productivity and nature-beneficial schemes, rather than simply spending public money. For context, I am sure the Minister will have seen the farming figures this morning. The Government borrowed £20.7 billion in June alone—the highest figure since records began, with the exception of June 2020, during peak covid. That is not an isolated figure. If we look at the previous month, the Government borrowed £17.7 billion in May. That was also the highest on record for May—again, with the exception of May 2020. So the Government are borrowing record sums, and the Department’s budget is under pressure—all the more reason not to sacrifice genuine scientific opportunities, particularly those that, as we have explored, have widespread public support. Will the Minister recognise that gene editing jointly serves the goals of food production and protecting nature, and ensure that we do not give away our competitive advantage? Specifically, will he confirm that the £12.5 million from the recent farming futures research and development fund for the precision breeding competition—aimed at mid-stage precision breeding projects—will be paid in full? Will he also confirm that funding will be made available directly to farmers to take part in field trials, so that the science actually progresses? In conclusion, gene editing is a genuine Brexit opportunity. It can boost economic growth, support food production, help protect our environment, and give us a competitive advantage over other countries. To sacrifice that as part of some UK-EU reset negotiations would be a serious mistake. It would be another example in a long list of decisions where the Department has been overridden by the Treasury. There is still time. The legislation is in place; the regulations are there. Can the Minister confirm today that gene editing will continue to be a priority, and that the UK Government will secure the advantages that it offers?

• 22 Jul 2025 · Gene Editing · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 22 Jul 2025 · Gene Editing · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady raises an important point. By embracing innovation in the technology, we can lead and, by leading, show the benefits to farming and nature that the EU may wish to follow. The EU regulation is cumbersome. It brings gene editing within the fold of gene modification. The pace of change is slow and its scope more limited. It is better to move ahead and show the benefits, rather than wait for the back-marker to see if they eventually come to the table and make the changes, many years after elsewhere in the world has moved on. The hon. Lady is right to highlight the pace of regulatory change and the sluggish nature of the EU. The opportunity of this technology is not far away. I mentioned a moment ago the grants that we had awarded for research into virus yellows disease. Researchers hope to have plants by the end of this decade that, if successful, will do away with the need for the harmful treatments and the dilemma that Ministers face as to whether to grant emergency authorisation. That would protect British sugar beet farmers from potentially catastrophic losses, while also increasing crop productivity and resilience, and at the same time increase sustainability and bring direct benefits to nature. I have long believed that there is an opportunity to see farming and nature not as opposites, but as complementary, and we can boost farming in ways that also are beneficial to nature. The hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) talked about the public response, and he is right to do so. I am pleased to note that the public at large support gene editing because of its environmental and economic benefits. A recent study found support among the public at 70% across the population as a whole. Interestingly, that rose to 80% among generation Z, so there is widespread support among the public. But if we are to realise the benefits and capitalise on that public support, we need to get the regulation right. That brings me, as the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) mentioned a moment ago, to European regulation. Back in 2018, the European Court of Justice ruled that gene-edited crops are subject to the same 2001 legislation as gene-modified organisms. Yet, as we touched on, the two techniques are very different and should not be confused. Gene editing speeds up changes that could occur naturally or through conventional selective breeding; it is unlike gene modification, which is where DNA from different species has been introduced to another, creating new types of plants and animals that could not have come about through natural methods. As a result, gene editing is a much lower and different risk, and should be treated in regulation differently from gene modification, but that is not the position of the European Union. Even the European Commission has realised that its regulatory approach is not fit for purpose, but progress is remarkably slow in changing it. While it is working on its own legislation, it will come years later and be more limited in scope than what we have done in the United Kingdom. After Brexit, the UK was able to diverge, which is why the previous Conservative Government brought forward the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023, which removed precision-bred plants and animals from the existing genetically modified organism regulatory system. The Act created a new framework for their oversight and provided the Secretary of State with powers of secondary legislation. I commend the Government and the Minister on pressing ahead with the required secondary legislation to bring this new system in for plants, which is due to come into force in November. So why the need for this debate? This debate is needed because I fear that the current optimism is a high point in this journey and that we are about to see the UK surrender the advantage that will help our farmers and our nature, and that has been gained with the primary and secondary legislation in place. To prevent that, I am seeking assurances from the Minister in three key areas: implementation, further expansion, and funding. First, on implementation, the Prime Minister’s EU reset at the UK-EU summit included plans for sanitary and phytosanitary agreement. To achieve that, the EU has suggested that dynamic alignment will be required of the UK, meaning that all relevant EU rules will apply to UK goods. As a result, some experts have suggested that there would need to be a pause on the UK’s progress in taking forward more effective regulation of gene editing, and that we would need to then wait while the EU spends potentially years putting in place its own more limited reforms. Waiting would hold back centres such as the John Innes Centre, UK science and development, and give up our hard-won commercial competitive advantage in terms of the sector and the jobs it employs. I mentioned how important gene editing crops will be to areas such as my constituency, and to leading businesses such as British Sugar, which works with over 3,500 growers and is concerned about alignment on this matter. It would urge the Government not to sacrifice the UK bioscience sector’s progress on gene editing in the UK-EU trade negotiations and to recognise that delaying the use of the technology in the UK would put us at risk of falling behind other countries using it. I wholeheartedly agree with that analysis and assessment. Will the Minister confirm that the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Regulations 2025 will come into force in November this year, and that there will be no delay? Secondly, on further expansion, I note that only regulations on gene editing plants have been brought forward. It was always the intention that plants would be first, and that regulations relating to animals would come second. This will provide another opportunity compared with the European Union. Discussions at an EU level suggest that animals will be excluded from its regulations, whenever they eventually emerge. It is vital that we capitalise on that opportunity, too. Will the Minister confirm that it is still the Government’s intention to bring forward the required secondary legislation under the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Regulations 2023 to remove precision-bred animals for the existing genetically modified organism regulatory system? Finally, on funding, I know the challenge that Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Ministers will be facing when it comes to negotiations with the Treasury, having been within both DEFRA and the Treasury, and given that farming is seemingly not a priority for the Labour Government, with £100 million of cuts to farming and countryside programmes announced in the spending review. Given that spending backdrop, one might have thought the Minister would want to maximise opportunities to boost farming and nature, which do not come at a cost to the Treasury.

• 22 Jul 2025 · Gene Editing · Hansard source

  More

  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.