Daniel Zeichner MP: speeches

Speeches

• 8 Jun 2026 · Progression of Bills through Parliament · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Edward. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) on the thoughtful and intelligent way he introduced the debate. As in every constituency, there are strongly held views on this issue in Cambridge. My constituents continue to write to me frequently. Most want the assisted dying Bill to proceed, as do the wider public. I supported the Bill at every stage, as I supported similar proposals a decade ago when they were introduced with great dignity by Rob Marris. I will continue to support such proposals. Although I appreciate the need to guard against vulnerable people being subjected to pressure, I do not believe that should stop rational, responsible people having agency over their lives. This debate is not about that; it is about the ability of the upper House to frustrate the will of the Commons. That, too, is a delicate issue in a country without a written constitution. I should declare a long-held interest, as I was once the organiser of the campaign for a democratic upper house. It was a small group, dedicated to achieving change within the Labour party. I pay tribute to my friend Damien Welfare for his tireless efforts over many years, which bore fruit in achieving promises in various Labour manifestos, but change comes slowly.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Progression of Bills through Parliament · Hansard source

  More

  I can assure the right hon. Lady that there are many people in Cambridge who follow these things very closely, so I do not disagree. I also pay tribute to my friend Meg Russell from the constitution unit, who has become something of a go-to person on Lords reform. I credit her with persuading me of the merits of a serious revising Chamber, because those of us who put ourselves forward for election have an in-built bias in favour of elections. Frankly, it can be pretty hard to get here—it took me 20 years and five attempts—so I find myself wondering why an appointed Chamber should have the power to frustrate. I will not go through the well-rehearsed arguments, but suffice it to say that, from experience, I am aware that an elected Chamber does not always get things right first time. I have great respect for the experience and seriousness of many colleagues in the Lords, but—and there is a but—the delicate relationship is based on an understanding that the elected Chamber has primacy, and that is where this petition has force. I do not doubt the sincerity of those who have chosen to filibuster the Bill, and that practice has a long tradition in many jurisdictions, but here there has long been an understanding that the Lords may delay but not destroy. On this issue, the will of the elected Chamber is clear, and it reflects the will of the people. Those in the Lords using these procedures to thwart that will should think hard about what they have done. They have put the relationship between the Lords and the Commons under scrutiny, and if this cannot be resolved, I am afraid it is clear what must come next: the relationship must change. I doubt that is what they want, but if this Parliament cannot find a way forward, much less sympathetic successors almost certainly will. I have long been in favour of a democratically elected second Chamber, reflecting the regions and nations of our country—a revising Chamber, yes, but one with democratic legitimacy. I hope this debate and this petition help to bring that a step closer.

• 3 Dec 2025 · Oxford to Cambridge Growth Corridor · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the Oxford to Cambridge Growth Corridor. It is, as ever, a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy. It is also a pleasure to lead a debate on plans that have been talked about for many years and that seem, finally, to be coming to fruition. I should declare at the outset that I am a council member of Innovate Cambridge. In this debate, I will first outline my experiences of the growth corridor project over the decade I have been in this place, to illustrate the stop-start nature of the previous Government’s approach. I will then make some broader points, particularly from a Cambridge perspective—I am sure that others will wish to make points from other perspectives—and conclude by seeking assurances from the Minister that the next decade will be very different from the last, and that we will actually make this happen. Before that, I would like to thank many of the people who contacted me to raise points in advance of the debate or whose advice I have sought. They include Cameron Holloway, the leader of Cambridge city council; Dan Thorpe of Cambridge Ahead; Peter Freeman of the Cambridge Growth Company; the University of Cambridge; Andy Williams and the Oxford-Cambridge Supercluster Board; the ever watchful Harriet Jones of Universities UK; Marshall in Cambridge; England’s Economic Heartland; Luton airport; and those who speak on behalf of motorsport and Formula 1—to name but some. There is a lot of interest in this issue and in this debate, and I welcome that. Let me start with a bit of history. When I was first elected, back in 2015, the idea of recognising that the area between Cambridge and Oxford could become something rather special had been talked about before, but I have to admit that in Cambridge—the same may well have been true in Oxford—support was somewhat lukewarm. The focus was on links to London and the wider world. Yes, there was a hankering after the old Oxford-Cambridge railway line, and yes, people bemoaned how long it took by road, but the real driving force when I came into Parliament was coming from Milton Keynes, where people could understandably see real advantages. Over time, though, I and many others have become completely converted to the position not only that this is an idea whose time has come, but that we need to get on with it and make it happen. It is so frustrating to me to look back at all the false starts and missed opportunities of the last, lost decade. At first, the Conservative Government talked of a new road, calling it a super-highway. A huge amount of time, money and discussion went into a project that was rightly described at the time by the then chief executive of the sub-regional transport body England’s Economic Heartland as a 20th-century solution to a 21st-century problem. In my view he was right, and, as a shadow Transport Minister, I secured a promise from the Labour Front-Bench team at the time that we would scrap it. We did not win the election, but we had won the argument—alongside, I have to say, some very effective campaigners—and the plan for the road was dropped. In the meantime, plans for the rail link ebbed and flowed, with a distinct lack of clarity about what it was for. Was it a link between the two cities? Or was it a way of getting people in and out of those cities, opening up desperately needed housing and avoiding situations such as Cambourne near Cambridge, where major developments were allowed to go ahead without proper transport links—a legacy that is still argued over today? Was it a freight line? Was it going to be electrified? Over the years, at the annual conferences regularly devoted to the subject, local government leaders came together with other interested parties and were, frankly, pretty amazed to hear that large numbers of civil servants were allocated to the project, beavering away, yet it seemed that little tangible output was coming through. I remember complaining bitterly about this one year. I felt rather badly about the senior civil servant I was tearing a strip off, but it just felt so frustrating. The following year, I found myself at the same conference extracting a promise from the then chief executive of East West Rail. He promised me that not a litre of diesel fuel would be purchased, although I did wonder whether that might have been because the rail line was never going to get built. Ironically, of course, the technology has completely changed and moved on in the years that have passed, so the choice is now much less binary than it was then. We could spend a long time this afternoon discussing the rail line—I know that some have a view on it—which remains controversial in the areas where, of course, any new rail line is disruptive.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Draft Free-Range Poultrymeat Marketing Standards (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Free-Range Poultrymeat Marketing Standards (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2025. It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy. I warmly welcome everyone back, and hope they had a good break. This statutory instrument has been laid to amend existing legislation governing poultry meat marketing standards, to enable free-range poultry meat to be marketed as such for the duration of mandatory housing measures introduced during disease outbreaks—such as avian influenza—that restrict access of birds to open-air runs. All other criteria on which the free-range marketing term relies, such as stocking density, age at slaughter, feed formula and poultry house pop-holes, must continue to be met. Sadly, outbreaks of avian influenza usually occur during the winter months, as was the case in 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2024-25, resulting in the introduction of mandatory housing measures for poultry, which in all cases have lasted longer than the 12-week labelling derogation period. That was for an additional 10 weeks in 2021-22, 11 weeks in 2022-23 and, most recently, eight weeks in 2024-25, so it will be important for the industry that the statutory instrument is in place for the upcoming winter period and beyond, in the event that we experience another avian influenza outbreak. Currently, when free-range birds are placed under mandatory housing measures due to disease outbreaks such as avian influenza, the poultrymeat marketing standards regulations allow poultry meat to continue to be labelled as free range for a maximum period of 12 weeks, known as the 12-week derogation period. After that, poultry meat from those birds has to be marketed as indoor-reared. In 2024, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs held a joint consultation on these proposed changes, working together with the Scottish Government. Of the respondents, 79% supported the removal of the derogation. A separate consultation was conducted by the Welsh Government. The European Commission also consulted on plans to remove the 12-week derogation period from its legislation. In line with the Windsor framework, any changes to EU legislation, when introduced, will also apply to Northern Ireland. The current requirement for poultry meat producers and processors to downgrade free-range poultry meat once the derogation period is exceeded represents a financial burden, primarily related to the need to incur the higher operating costs of maintaining their free-range system, with the additional cost of having to ensure that birds are also temporarily housed indoors, combined with the loss of income from the premium price that free-range products attract. The statutory instrument will remove the 12-week derogation period, so that free-range poultry meat producers and processors can market poultry meat as free range for the duration of a mandatory housing measure, however long that may last. With the EU introducing a similar change to its legislation, the introduction of the statutory instrument will enable English free-range producers and processors to continue to operate on a level playing field commercially with producers in the EU and Northern Ireland. As broiler chickens are generally slaughtered before reaching 12 weeks of age, the removal of the derogation will apply primarily to higher-value free-range birds with longer production cycles, such as turkeys, ducks and geese. We are working closely with devolved Governments to align the introduction of the planned changes. A statutory instrument will be laid in the Scottish Parliament in early September 2025 to amend their domestic regulations in relation to the removal of the 12-week derogation period. We anticipate the Welsh Government will make an announcement shortly regarding the removal of the 12-week derogation period within their legislation. The change to be introduced by this statutory instrument will safeguard our British poultry meat industry by reducing costs, continuing to ensure it is competitive against imports, and by protecting the value of its products without compromising our high welfare and food safety standards, rightly expected by UK consumers and our trading partners.