Steve Barclay MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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?

• 25 Mar 2026 · Victims and Courts Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It would be easy for anyone watching the proceedings, with not many Members in the Chamber to discuss these Lords amendments, to think this is about some technical issue or minor point of debate, but the votes today really do matter. They matter to victims, who are currently charged often thousands of pounds for the transcripts of the court hearings in which they were involved. They matter for the transparency and openness of our legal system. They also matter to the public, because on this very issue over 200,000 people signed a public petition, which was debated in Westminster Hall on Monday this week. Although people may think these are just Lords amendments, this is an important set of votes. I gently say to the Minister that her speech did sound a bit like an episode of “Yes Minister” in that her remarks were, “I fully support giving victims more rights, and that is why today I’m going to vote against every one of the amendments to do so.” As she was speaking, I wrote down some of her phrases. She said that this is “a Bill for victims”, as if the amendments made in the Lords are not meant to empower victims, when they clearly are. She said that she wants to “go further”. It is no wonder her own colleague, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), said she was “confused”, and she was not the only one confused by a Minister saying that she wants to go further by voting against amendments that would enable us to go further. The Minister justifies that inconsistency by saying she needs to consult more, including with the judiciary, as if the Government have been ambushed by their own legislation. They control the timing of this Bill and they brought it to the House, but then they say, “Oh, actually, the timing’s not right, and we need more time to consult.” They themselves are legislating and they control the time, so if they needed to consult, they could have done that in a timely fashion. The Minister said she accepts the challenge of the pressure that the 14-day period puts people under, especially given the interplay with the 28-day window for the unduly lenient sentence scheme. Just to explain that in lay terms, if people want to appeal a sentence that they feel is unduly lenient, they have to do so within 28 days. However, if they cannot get access to the transcript in a timely fashion, their ability to do that is severely constrained. The Government control the legislation and its timing of its introduction, yet they are going to ask Labour Members to vote against these amendments. Is it any wonder they keep U-turning, because they are saying one thing and then they are going to vote to do the opposite today on the basis that at some point in the future they may come round to doing what they say they want to do at the moment? The Minister says that more cannot be done now, pointing to reasons of technical issues and constraints, while also saying that the Government are overcoming those constraints in relation to sentencing remarks. Again, there is no “can do”. There are lots of things in a court bundle ahead of a court hearing—witness statements, and a huge amount of other documentation—and vastly more information could be shared with victims in a timely way, yet such discussions do not seem to have taken place. It is no wonder that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) called what we are getting instead “waffle”. We have been told we are going to have guidance, work on awareness and—that Government catch-all—a code, as if that is a replacement for actually giving victims access to the transcripts they want. The crux of the issue is that the Government are introducing this legislation, but those in the Lords have quite rightly scrutinised it and seen that there are constraints on the timescales. The Government do not dispute that; they accept that there is a good case for victims to have more access to transcripts. Indeed, on Monday in Westminster Hall, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards), said: “There is an issue of transparency regarding court transcripts”. —[ Official Report, 23 March 2026; Vol. 783, c. 39WH.] Is it not therefore bizarre that the Government will ask their own Back Benchers to vote against doing something about what they accept is a real issue for victims of crime?

• 23 Mar 2026 · Court and Tribunal Transcripts · Hansard source

  More

  It is not surprising that the Minister is setting out the concerns that MOJ officials have no doubt raised with him about reporting restrictions and accuracy in the text, which are all valid. However, there is a danger that the perfect becomes the enemy of the good. I have two specific points. First, to what extent could the judge, as the trial proceeds, earmark packages of documents, audio recordings or other information that could be made more readily available, rather than the perfect being the enemy of the good? Secondly, the Government have made a lot of passing a duty of candour. Is the duty of candour complied with if the cost of obtaining a transcript is so high that the victim simply cannot afford it, or if it arrives after the 28 days that my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) spoke about?

• 23 Mar 2026 · Court and Tribunal Transcripts · Hansard source

  More

  Over the years, I have often found that when the Members on each Front Bench agree on an issue, there are dangers for Parliament, not least because legislation is often insufficiently scrutinised. Conversely, when the Back-Bench Members of each of the parties agree, it is often—it certainly was when I was a Minister—a warning sign that the Government of the day need to move. What has been uplifting about the debate we have heard so far, with evidence from those on the Government Benches—the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols), who spoke very powerfully, and the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash)—as well as from my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) and the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), has been the consensus that this is a burning issue of concern to our constituents. It clearly is a burning concern, given the volume of respondents to the petition—has more than 200,000 signatories, which signals how much this matters. I do not want to divert away from today’s debate but, given the restriction of access to jury trials and that direction of travel from the Government—a direction that I regret and indeed many on the Government Benches appear to regret—the opportunity for the Government to move more quickly on transparency and transcripts is even more pertinent that it would otherwise be. I am speaking in this debate because I am keen to hear from the Minister about where he sees the sticking point. My sense from the Government’s comments today has been that they are broadly sympathetic to the direction of travel—I think the Minister is nodding his head to indicate that, and I have no reason to believe otherwise. It would be helpful, given that he and the Government are sympathetic, to understand how the House can support them in moving more quickly, and in particular whether the constraint is one of legislation. As we know from past debates in this place, this House can move very quickly on legislation when it so desires, particularly if there is cross-party agreement. Indeed, the hon. Member for Richmond Park indicated there was agreement in the House of Lords as well. If, then, the constraint is legislative, there are ample opportunities for us to address that at pace. If it is contractual, I suspect that the sums are relatively modest, given the prize on offer. It would be helpful to understand what the contractual costs would be if one were to try to terminate or to vary the agreement. Indeed, where there is significant cross-party political pressure, it is surprising how suppliers, perhaps with a view to other contracts in future, may be willing to amend a contract. If the restrictions and difficulties for Ministers are technological, we saw in the covid period that, with a clear enough demand signal from Government, it is surprising how quickly technology improvements can be put in place when there is the will to do so. But I fear that what is at fault here is not this Minister, but the slow pace at which Whitehall is in the habit of operating. That is why it is important that in this debate we support the Minister and the direction of travel that I think he wants to go in, while understanding where the blockages are. I have a few quick questions. First, given the Government’s support, as I understand it, for the recording of proceedings in court, to what extent could audio clips, either in whole or in part, be made more quickly available? If there is some concern with the accuracy of the AI, for example, are there other ways of solving that? Where can we start, rather than waiting for the whole thing to be resolved? Secondly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley touched on, witness statements and huge numbers of documents are produced as part of the discovery process in court. Court bundles—a huge number of documents—are prepared in advance of court hearings. It strikes me that much more could be done to make those available, particularly to the victims of crime, than is the case now. What assessment has been made of which parts of those court bundles could be made available? Thirdly, what exactly are the technology constraints? Again, looking at the progress in other areas of Government and commitments made by the Prime Minister about AI in No. 10 summits recently, why can we not move more quickly than the slow pace at which the Ministry of Justice appears to be operating? That is particularly pertinent because of the point my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley made about the 28-day time limit for appeal. That is a hard deadline, and yet, as he sets out, decisions often take a while to come. The cost is prohibitive, and people are not able to get the information they seek in a timely fashion ahead of the deadline. My sense is that the Government want to move in that direction, so I hope the debate today has signalled the cross-party consensus to do so. When the Minister sums up, I encourage him to clarify exactly where the blockages are. If he reads the Institute for Government reports, he will see that Ministers have a habit of moving very frequently. Those on the Government Benches who are seen as talented often move very frequently indeed. He has an opportunity during his tenure in the Ministry of Justice to move quickly, to take advantage of the cross-party support and—at a time when his own Government are restricting access to jury trials—to do something that will be hugely helpful to victims, and something that the public have signalled they want very much.

• 23 Mar 2026 · Court and Tribunal Transcripts · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. I fully support the case that he is making for full transparency, but in the spirit of “I’ll start by starting”, he touched on witness statements that would have been prepared beforehand but were still not available. If the Minister accepts the principle around greater transparency, does my hon. Friend agree that certain aspects could immediately be made much more available, while some of the other technical discussions are taken in parallel?

• 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?

• 11 Feb 2026 · Police Grant Report · Hansard source

  More

  As the Minister is getting into the detail of the funding package, will she accept two broad points? First, the overall number of police officers in England has fallen on Labour’s watch. Secondly, because of cost pressures on police forces from other decisions taken by her Government, the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners has said that there is a £500 million shortfall in the allocation of funding from this Government to police forces.

• 7 Jan 2026 · Jury Trials · Hansard source

  More

  I would not say this of most of the debates that I attend in the House, but this one has been genuinely revealing, primarily because of what the Minister said at the end and the opening of her remarks. As the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) pointed out powerfully—he speaks with great professional experience on this issue—these proposals will not work. That is exactly what the Minister has been told by her own colleagues. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) described the proposals as “ludicrous” and said that they will not work. It is what she has been told by her own profession—her own colleagues in the legal profession point to the fact that these proposals will not work. That speaks to a conundrum we have considered in past debates on this issue: why is there such reluctance on the part of the Government to bring forward the impact assessment if they have already made this decision? If they have already taken the view that these changes will work, surely they want to present the evidence to prove that. As was pointed out earlier in the debate, if they will not publish the full impact assessment, surely they will publish the threshold—the minimum tipping point—on which this policy will be determined worth while, not least given how fundamental a change is being proposed. As the Minister set out at the end of her remarks, she would be making this change irrespective of whether there is a crisis in the courts. There we have the crux—the head of the nail that the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim hit—which is that this is an ideological change. That in turn opens up a second paradox: if the change is ideological, why was it not in the manifesto? Indeed, if it is ideological, why is it contrary to what the Justice Secretary said so many times in opposition? When did he have his change of belief to this new ideological position? Given the time limit, I will turn to a further contradiction. The Prime Minister has so often spoken about the need for more trust in politics, yet here we have a policy that marks a fundamental change after 800 years of legal precedent with no transparency or evidence that it will work, that was not in the manifesto and that is contrary to the remarks that the Government have made. At the start of her remarks, the Minister spoke about choices. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) pointed out with the list he gave and as my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) rightly identified, this will be a choice for Labour Back Benchers, and it is a choice that they are at risk of making only for the Prime Minister to then belatedly change his mind.

• 8 Dec 2025 · Restriction of Jury Trials · Hansard source

  More

  The logic of the Minister’s argument seems to be that the Justice Secretary was repeatedly wrong in the past to defend jury trials, that many of her colleagues are wrong to have concerns, and that her own Government were wrong not to mention it at all in the Labour party manifesto. She has repeatedly refused to say whether she would publish modelling and referred to the impact assessment. Can she clarify this: has the work in the Department been done on the impact assessment and she simply will not publish it, or has it not done that work, in which case the claims she is making are without evidence?

• 8 Dec 2025 · Maccabi Tel Aviv FC: Away Fans Ban · Hansard source

  More

  After hearing the Policing Minister, I am slightly incredulous. In her last reply to a perfectly reasonable question from her own side of the House about the roles of UEFA and the safety advisory group, she said she is happy to go back and ask questions. She said in her statement that the mistakes were “alarming”—that is the phrase she used. This has been going on for weeks. The Minister has had a letter back from West Midlands police that she has not shared with the House before replying to this urgent question. She is saying that we will not have all the answers until the end of March, yet the Prime Minister is saying that this is a really high priority. Why is it taking so long to get simple answers on something that is of concern across the House?

• 29 Oct 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Indeed, change for the worse. It is bizarre that when serious offences take place, quite often it is the judiciary who get the blame. Perhaps I have an unfashionable view in that I think that we have a very high-quality judiciary, but it is easy for people to look at sentences and then quickly leap to criticise the judiciary, saying that it is their fault that sentencing is wrong. Indeed, there are such cases—the shadow Justice Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), has highlighted some concerning conflicts of interest of some within the judiciary—but it is far more common that issues arise because the judiciary are operating within the tramlines imposed by sentencing guidelines. I remember a constituency case where someone was killed by dangerous driving. It highlighted the fact that while this House had increased the sentencing for such crimes, the sentencing guidelines set so many obstacles to getting a maximum sentence that, in practice, hardly anyone ever reached the tariff that the House had intended. Key decisions on issues of public policy should not be outsourced to quangos, meaning—as my constituency neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), highlighted—the public often do not have any idea who is making the decisions. I come back to the Labour manifesto. It promised change, but when it comes to the sentencing guidelines, it will be the same people, applying the same approach; that is anything but change. If the manifesto is to deliver change, it is right that democratic oversight is imposed and that this House and Ministers take more responsibility.

• 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.

• 16 Sept 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Prison officers at Whitemoor prison in my constituency have raised concerns that the recruitment process for staff is not working effectively and is unduly bureaucratic. Will the Secretary of State write to me with his assessment and look at what changes could be made?

• 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.