Daniel Zeichner MP: speeches

Speeches

• 3 Jun 2026 · Improving the UK Visa System · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is absolutely right. I remember notorious problems with the system based in Croydon from when I was a teenager living there, so the issue goes back 50 or 60 years. The issue is important because it creates such uncertainty for so many people, with knock-on effects for employment, housing and family life. We are seeing cases where constituents are seeking to reunite with family members through refugee family reunion routes, including applications made, exactly as has been suggested, prior to recent changes in the immigration rules. That includes cases where people are trying to be with seriously ill relatives, but still facing delays even when urgent expedition routes exist. Importantly, those routes prioritise only case consideration; they do not guarantee that a faster decision will be made. Frankly, in many cases, I have found constituents unable to take up confirmed job offers or proceed with planned family relocations because applications remain unresolved or there is insufficient clarity around timelines. Alongside the delays themselves, a recurring concern is the difficulty that constituents face in obtaining any information—again, exactly as has been pointed out—which leaves them unable to plan with confidence or understand their position within the system. I think that point will be repeated throughout the debate. My second point refers to a time when I was fisheries Minister. Last summer, late in my occupation of that post, I visited the constituency of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I was alerted to problems in the Northern Ireland fishing industry, where a relatively small number of visas are essential to its continuation. I wrote to the Minister with some suggestions for working with the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations. I gently say that that offer stands if he wishes to take it up. My final issue refers to the points made by the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire about language testing. The Cambridge University Press & Assessment, a major employer in Cambridge, is one of the players that bid and then withdrew its bid because of concerns about the changes to online testing. It asked me a number of questions that I will put to the Minister today, echoing the points that have already been made. Is he really satisfied that a fully remote model can match the security of in-person, supervised testing? These are high-stakes tests because the number of people coming to our country depends on their accuracy. I echo the point calling for an explanation of why are we diverging from Australia and Canada, which have rejected this approach, and I ask whether the Home Office will publish the risk assessment underpinning the move to remote-by-default testing, including its assessment of fraud, impersonation, AI-enabled cheating, hidden devices and organised malpractice. Could the Minister also tell us whether the Home Office has consulted the National Cyber Security Centre on the threat model for fully remote English language testing, including AI-enabled cheating, impersonation, organised fraud and cross-border cyber-risks? Perhaps he could explain why the Government are moving towards remote-by-default testing when other high-stakes assessment bodies are moving in the opposite direction. For example, the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants is ending remote invigilation, and the Law School Admission Council, which runs the law school admission test for US schools, is returning to in-person testing to protect security and integrity. Could he tell us whether the Home Office English language testing system will be independently regulated to the same standard as the current secure English language tests, and whether Ofqual will have a formal role? What fall-back arrangements are in place if security, reliability or integrity problems emerge after the contract is awarded, including whether the Home Office could realistically switch provider or return to higher-assurance in-person provision? I appreciate that the Minister and his colleagues inherited a system that was buckling under the strain, and I also appreciate the hard work of the many civil servants trying to make it work, but I would appreciate any answers that the Minister can give.

• 13 May 2026 · Debate on the Address · Hansard source

  More

  It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), just as it was a great pleasure to visit his beautiful constituency last week. Even though I do not agree with everything he said, he is a true gentleman. I will keep my comments relatively brief, but I echo his tributes, and those of other Members, to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah), and particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince), for their excellent speeches. My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow and I campaigned for many years in the east of England, which is not the easiest place to win for Labour, and I do not think that either of us would have imagined that he would be here, delivering that brilliant speech. I am so pleased for him—it is a joy. I welcome the Gracious Speech. I know how much work, thought, effort and planning go into it; I also know how many things that others wanted to see in it did not make the cut. Although I was pleased to hear the Prime Minister’s remarks about a national system of food redistribution, which I would welcome, I hope that in future we will see measures to modernise the regulation of the food system to secure the outcomes that we would all like around health, environment and food security. There are a whole range of Bills that I particularly welcome: the clean water Bill, the energy independence Bill, the social housing renewal Bill and the draft taxi licensing Bill. Over the years, I have spent many hours in this Chamber talking about the taxi and private hire trade. I genuinely hope for progress on modernising the legislation, which has become woefully out of date as the world has moved on.

• 13 May 2026 · Debate on the Address · Hansard source

  More

  This is a complicated set of issues. There has been a genuine change in the structure of the industry because of the legal cases to which the hon. Member refers. Over the years, out-of-area working has particularly troubled me; I hope we can address that and make it safe. The hon. Member is absolutely right that the squeeze on drivers has been harsh, so I hope we can address that too. I am delighted that more than a quarter of a century after I led a debate at the Labour conference on lowering the voting age, it looks as if it is finally going to happen. It is ironic that it has taken 25 years to lower the voting age to 16, but I am really pleased. While I am on constitutional reform, I suspect that there is still some unfinished business relating to the second Chamber. I would love to see that addressed. Most of all, like one or two others, I welcome the proposals to bring us closer to the European Union. One of my happiest days as a Minister last year was the day of the agreement that we had started to develop. I remember the celebrations that evening in the Downing Street garden, where pieces of cake with Union Jacks and EU flags on them were being passed around. Our phones had been confiscated, unfortunately; I would have loved to send a picture back to my constituents in Cambridge. I understand that not everyone would have been celebrating, but I can tell the House that my constituents would certainly have been delighted. I was very pleased to hear the Prime Minister’s comments on that in his speech on Monday. There is a paradox here, is there not? I think most people in this country can now see that there was a problem with the Brexit process and that what was promised at the time has not been delivered, and yet the very people who led the campaign have been surging in the polls. They are the people responsible for the damage, and frankly I think we have been a bit too cautious about pointing it out. The argument goes that we should not be telling the electors that they are wrong. That is absolutely right, but it is not the electors who were wrong; it is the people who, frankly, misled them. They were shamelessly misled, and frankly I think they are being misled again. We should repeat the message endlessly: “Be warned—do not listen to these people.” In his speech on Monday, the Prime Minister explicitly chose Europe. He also chose young people, and in doing so he chose the future. I was genuinely thrilled to hear it because, as far as I can see, my generation and the generation above it have run off with all the money. The only way in which that will change is through explicit political choices. There is a feeling that politicians cannot say anything about the pensioner generation for fear of upsetting them, because they vote. Well, I think it has gone too far, quite frankly. It is time to recognise the very real intergenerational unfairness that has emerged. I hope not only that we will see schemes to help young people working and travelling in Europe, but that every policy will be examined and the question asked will be, “What impact will this have on the younger generation?” Let me make one final point. In my speech during the Budget debate a few months ago, I railed against what I called the “fragmentation and privatisation”—the decay—of the public realm. In retrospect, I think that was a rather Cambridge way of putting it, because frankly I needed to be a bit more blunt. The question is: why are so many areas around the places where people live in such a state? That point has been made by a number of hon. Members. It is no wonder that people are fed up. Whether it is graffiti, fly-tipping or potholes, we need to tackle those issues with an urgency that for too long has been missing. Yes, local government has been hollowed out and under-resourced, but just saying that will not reassure angry voters; we need to actually fix those problems and show that we are fixing them. When we had the pandemic, it was a national emergency, and I think we need to take a similar approach to address problems of this scale. I wish the Prime Minister well as he tries to make the national machine work. Frankly, the Labour party needs him to succeed, but, even more, the country needs him to succeed.

• 2 Mar 2026 · Representation of the People Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my right hon. Friend on extending the franchise. Has he thought about the 4 million people who live in this country and do not have access to voting? There are 22,000 of those people in Cambridge. This is a complicated issue, but has he given it any consideration? No taxation without representation is a powerful principle.

• 23 Feb 2026 · Oxford-Cambridge Growth Corridor · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the work he has been doing on this issue, and I was pleased to see the announcement of the consultation on the development corporation a few weeks ago. What further steps can we expect to be taken along the corridor in the coming months?

• 23 Feb 2026 · Oxford-Cambridge Growth Corridor · Hansard source

  More

  5. What recent assessment he has made with Cabinet colleagues of the adequacy of progress on the delivery of the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor.

• 11 Feb 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q13. Last week, the Government launched a consultation on establishing a growth development corporation for Cambridge. In the meantime, Peter Freeman, the chairman of the Cambridge Growth Company, is on the record as saying that Cambridge should aim to be“the most liveable city in Europe”.That is a fantastic ambition with which I entirely agree. Given that this will be good for growth, not just for Cambridge but for the region and the wider economy, will the Prime Minister set out what more the Government can do to help us, not least to help the generation of young people who can barely afford a home?

• 4 Dec 2025 · Food Security · Hansard source

  More

  The UK food system has shown remarkable resistance and flexibility in recent years, but seasoned industry voices are warning that we face new challenges from climatic risk and global instability. I appreciate that this is not just a food production issue, but a cross-Government issue. Can my right hon. Friend say a little more about measures to assess our readiness for these new challenges?

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

  More

  I was expecting an intervention from the hon. Gentleman because we have discussed this issue before. I absolutely disagree with him, not on some of the points of detail, but on the benefits that railways bring. This is absolutely the right approach, although we can argue about the details. There are people in this room who are more expert than I am on the battery technologies that are now available, which I think will be the solution. Partly due to the hon. Gentleman’s hard work, this whole project came close to being scrapped a few years ago. I remember well that the then Transport Secretary, Grant Shapps, in a famous intervention—possibly by Zoom—gave a thumbs down to the project, which was widely taken to be the end of it at the time. I now have to praise a leading Conservative politician, the then Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt), who got the argument about how important this was, not just for the arc but for the wider economy. I remember having a number of coded exchanges with him across the Chamber, and being greatly reassured. So the project survived, much to the disappointment of the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller). I was delighted to join the Minister for Rail, Lord Hendy, in Cambridge a couple of weeks ago to unveil the latest stage in the process. It feels that we are getting past the debate about whether it is going to happen and moving on to how we make it happen. To go from concept to action will, of course, take some years yet, but we are building a piece of transport infrastructure that will be transformational. There is so much more to the corridor debate than the rail line. The housing opportunities are significant and the knowledge clusters that are likely to emerge are exciting. There were times when the previous Government seemed enthusiastic. I remember MPs along what was then described as the arc being invited to attend a drop-in at the Minister’s office. I turned up, expecting a healthy queue of people, only to find a slightly bemused Minister, who shall remain nameless, looking amazed that anyone showed up, doing his constituency correspondence. We had a perfectly civilised conversation and I queried who they were thinking of appointing as the recently announced business tsar. It was clear that insufficient preparatory work had been done, because he gently asked if I knew anyone who might interested. I came away fairly convinced that there was a lack of grip associated with the project. Others were more organised. When the project was under threat, the University of Cambridge put on its best Rolls-Royce operation and got involved, with some excellent work from the then pro-vice-chancellor, Andy Neely. That was instrumental in keeping the project alive at a key moment. With others, it then helped to bring together universities along the corridor to pool their efforts. Much more could be said on that, and there are many other players to be acknowledged, but I hope, Sir Jeremy, you get my drift: this has been long in gestation.

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

  More

  Absolutely, although I am puzzled as to the relationship between Ox-Cam and Northern Ireland.

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

  More

  I am very grateful; the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) never disappoints. He is absolutely right that housing is important everywhere and is a key part of this project. I was thrilled with the appointment of Lord Vallance as the Minister and leader of this project. I think we are now finally getting into gear. Last year’s Budget identified it as a key priority for the Government, and the Chancellor’s publication of the prospectus is a statement of intent. I hope that the Minister can report on the progress that is being made. I would like to make some brief observations from the Cambridge end of the corridor. Recent announcements about revving up the Cambridge Growth Company are very welcome, but could the Minister give an assurance that the funding announced will be made available quickly? That will mean that the very best chief executive officer can be sought with a green light that the funds are readily available, and will give investors the confidence they need. Could he also comment on his preferred approach on land value capture, including on direct Government purchase? The Supercluster Board, which covers this whole area, includes some of the country’s leading FTSE 100 and privately owned companies, including AstraZeneca, GSK, Airbus and AVEVA, and other investors and Britain’s top universities. They have welcomed the ambition to double the economy of the Oxford-Milton Keynes-Cambridge region by 2035. Among their key asks is for what they describe as “taskforce-led governance”, modelled after the successful vaccine taskforce, which would embed a permanent partnership between Government—local and national—funding bodies, industry and academia to co-ordinate delivery. They want the taskforce to provide consistent decision making across Government that prioritises the growth corridor in national-level policy areas, and to be empowered to instruct Departments to act where existing rules prevent delivery. That is a very big ask, as I well know, but the governance issues really do matter. I well remember Sir John Armitt from the National Infrastructure Commission reflecting on how hard it is to co-ordinate when dealing with some 22 local government bodies along the corridor. The University of Cambridge points out that together the universities of Oxford and Cambridge have produced over 400 spin-outs, which is the highest of any UK academic institution, and that in the last decade the University of Cambridge has curated no less than nine unicorn businesses. Its spin-out companies have also raised over £3 billion of investment in private venture capital. The university also highlights the need for skills, seeking collaboration across the corridor to ensure that a pipeline of talent is available and that those living across the corridor benefit from the opportunities that it will provide. It wants to ensure that there is provision for training the highly skilled technicians who are needed to support world-leading research; they are critical to everything that the university does and vital to support emerging spin-outs. Can the Minister spell out what the Government are doing with local authorities and employers to develop a strategic skills plan to deliver infrastructure both in the corridor and the wider east, and how they will use this plan to raise outcomes and incomes for local people? My local authority, Cambridge city council, rightly highlights the need for sustained and meaningful engagement with local residents and significant investment in social housing, including council housing. It also highlights the need for investment in skills to provide opportunity for local young people, and it supports having a wider talent pool for local businesses. It highlights the need for the corridor to be environmentally sustainable and seeks support for a doubling nature target. When the Minister was in Cambridge at the Innovate Cambridge event a few weeks ago, there was widespread welcome for his announcement of a new forest. Perhaps he could say more about that today. The organisation Cambridge Ahead highlights the existing challenges that have to be tackled, including the way in which the infrastructure gap is constraining growth in the corridor. That includes issues around the fresh water supply, waste water treatment capacity, electricity grid capacity constraints, and intracity regional transport connectivity. It is worth asking what reassurances the Minister can provide about infrastructure-enabled capacity through to 2050 at least being in scope for the Ox-Cam project. England’s Economic Heartland tells me that delivering an integrated transport system in the corridor should not be a choice for Government, because that is absolutely essential—and it is right. The global significance of the Oxford to Cambridge growth corridor means that it should be matched with a world-class transport offer, embedding the principles of the imminent integrated national transport strategy from the outset. It makes economic sense to do so, and the corridor should be an exemplar for that strategy. Many others along the corridor will have similar asks and stories, and I am looking forward to hearing them. The Formula 1 sector tells me that the Formula 1 ecosystem employs over 6,000 people directly in the UK, and its teams work with 3,500 British-based companies that support approximately 41,000 jobs, including 25,000 highly skilled engineers. In total, the Formula 1 industry contributes more than £12 billion annually to the UK economy, and the key point is that from 2026 onwards, nine of the 11 Formula 1 teams will have bases within the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor, alongside a dense supply chain of advanced engineering firms. This cluster supports tens of thousands of local jobs and positions the region as a global centre of excellence for motorsport engineering and innovation. Similarly, London Luton airport, which I am sure we will hear more about today, is well placed to serve the corridor and has an important role to play in Universal’s plans to build its first European theme park near Bedford. The airport’s location and growth are both potentially key factors in the company’s decision to choose a location within the Oxford-Cambridge corridor. I am conscious that I have been speaking for a while now. There is much more to be said and I suspect that many hon. Members will take the opportunity to raise their own issues. However, I hope that the Minister gets a sense of the enthusiasm that exists along the corridor and a sense of the huge opportunity that exists, not just for the area in question but for the UK economy in general. I leave the Minister with the question that I posed at the beginning of my remarks. Will this be the decade when we move to action and, if it is, can he set out exactly the plans to make that happen?

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

  More

  I thought the hon. Gentleman might want to intervene.

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

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his continuing support and interest, and I thank all colleagues for their contributions today. I think that there was sufficient interest to suggest that we reconvene once a year to have this discussion. We also heard a number of bids for the centre of the corridor. As we approach the quantum future, it may be possible to have more than one centre at once—who knows? The key theme that has come through is the need for co-ordination and the fact that infrastructure has to come first. I am delighted that Peter Freeman of the Cambridge Growth Company has stressed that that will be his approach. That leads me to my conclusion, which is that it is important to maintain public support for this project. That will only happen if people can see that there is something in it for them. Better transport and environmental gain are key to that. Thank you, Sir Jeremy, for chairing the debate in such a splendid way. I look forward to further engagement with colleagues. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the Oxford to Cambridge Growth Corridor.

• 26 Nov 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to follow the Father of the House and his wide-ranging contribution. I think he is slightly more optimistic about the ability to achieve consensus across the Front Benches than, sadly, I might be, but his point about intergenerational unfairness is absolutely right. Let me start by recognising the hard work that the Treasury team have put into this Budget against a challenging international backdrop, particularly around trade issues. I particularly welcome the long overdue measures around council tax on more valuable properties. No one wants to pay more tax, of course, but some of us appreciate that the public services and the public realm need to be properly funded. Frankly, what is extraordinary to me is the number of years that those invaluable properties have escaped proper taxation. I am old enough to remember how that all came about, with the council tax being introduced as a quick fix after the debacle of the Tory poll tax. I am afraid that some people on the Conservative Benches never change: they are always hankering to find a way to escape paying their dues. They hanker after things like flat taxes or whatever, but after 30 years of certain properties not making their contribution, I am delighted that it is this Government who are finally cracking down on that unfairness. There are many other aspects to this Budget that I strongly welcome. Many of my Cambridge constituents commute into London, and the freeze on regulated rail fares, including season tickets, will be widely welcomed. I also wish to say a few things about what the money raised in the Budget is spent on. In my experience, both as an MP and a former Minister, it was not just the council tax system that the Tories broke in the 1990s; it went much wider. The fragmentation and privatisation of so much of our public realm have not only cost us financially but contributed to the gloom that has descended on what is still a rich and successful country. Private affluence alongside public decay does not make for a happy society. In the limited time I have, I will cite a few examples that I have come across over the previous few weeks. The chaos in our prison and justice systems goes back in no small part to the disastrous policies pursued by Chris Grayling in his misguided attempts to privatise the Probation Service, from which it has never fully recovered. The fragmentation of services was made particularly clear recently, when residents in a modern development near Cambridge railway station complained to me about the problems they faced with both criminal behaviour and poor building standards. The housing associations turned out in force to meet me—it is amazing what a visit from an MP will do—and they told me about the labyrinth of organisations involved in those issues: at least two councils, the police, those responsible for developing the building, those responsible for maintaining the building, and those responsible for fire safety. In those circumstances, how could anyone come to a sensible solution? I came away very clear about one thing: no one seemed to take responsibility overall, and as a consequence, the residents have a very poor deal. Another example is the rightful national outcry about the abuses that have resulted from too many neighbourhood shops selling vapes and smuggled cigarettes, exposed so well by BBC investigative reporters. I could not be the only one who wondered why it seemed so hard to enforce the law when it is being flouted in plain sight, so I asked the House of Commons Library for statistics on what has happened to trading standards officers over the years. Guess what? In 2010, local authorities spent just under £172 million per annum on them. By 2020, that had fallen to just over £103 million. That figure recovered only a little, to £117 million, by 2024. I understand that trading standards are not the only agencies involved, but it is no wonder that they struggle to respond. That is certainly not a criticism of trading standards officers; they do a remarkable job, given that they have been starved of resources. My conclusion is that this Budget is a really good start in difficult circumstances, yet we have a huge way to go in rebuilding the public realm so that we have a country that feels safe and secure for everyone. Putting back together what has been broken apart is neither easy nor quick; it is much easier to break things than to put them back together again. We have had decades of disruption from the Conservative party, and things would only be made worse by the party that goes by the name of Reform. It, too, ought to go to trading standards, because that is a false prospectus. The party is not about reforming the country, but about breaking it. I am confident that people will increasingly recognise that, so I urge my Treasury colleagues to stand firm and rebuild not just our economy but the communities in which we all live, whatever our circumstances.

• 12 Nov 2025 · Universities: Research and Development · Hansard source

  More

  The Business and Trade Committee recently visited the remarkable new Cavendish laboratory in Cambridge, and the key issue that came up was the balance between research funding going to post-doctorates and to PhD students. It is a complicated, niche issue, but would the Minister arrange for me, UK Research and Innovation and the appropriate people to meet, to try to resolve this long-running issue?

• 4 Sept 2025 · Climate Change: Food Security · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I join him in commending the Dinsdale family for the work they do. I have spoken to a number of farmers who would very much like to do that. Of course, there is significant cost involved, and we are working with farmers to try to get the circular economy that we all want to see.

• 4 Sept 2025 · Climate Change: Food Security · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Of course, consumer food prices depend on a wide range of factors, including agrifood import prices, agricultural prices in general, domestic labour and manufacturing costs, exchange rates, productivity and the extreme weather we have been seeing, which inevitably impacts growth and livestock feed supplies. I reassure the House that the UK has a very resilient food supply chain, and as our food security report shows, it is well equipped to meet these challenges.

• 4 Sept 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and we should all be proud of high-quality British producers like Longley farm. That is why, back in July, I announced our food strategy, which will build pride in British food by ensuring we have a food system that backs British food, grows the economy, feeds the nation, nourishes individuals and protects the planet—now and in the future.

• 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.

• 22 Jul 2025 · Gene Editing · Hansard source

  More

  It is always a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. Let me congratulate the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay)—my near neighbour and colleague—on securing today’s debate on such an important policy area. He is clearly deeply knowledgeable on issues relating to EU negotiation and, as we have heard this morning, on matters relating to precision breeding. I will be watching later today to see whether he is seamlessly edited back on to his party’s Front Bench; I wish him well with that. I found myself being taken back to what was for me one of the most rewarding times in Parliament—sitting on the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill Committee. We had many of the discussions that the right hon. Gentleman has taken us through this morning. That Bill was a very good piece of cross-party work; there has been considerable cross-party consensus on this topic, although there are areas of disagreement. This Government were elected just a year ago on a manifesto absolutely promising to kickstart economic growth. We want to work with industry to remove barriers to growth and to seize new opportunities. Key to achieving that is seizing the opportunities presented through harnessing innovative technologies. As the Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs, I genuinely want to realise the benefits of new technologies to help us address many of the challenges, set out today, that face our agricultural system: to meet our environmental goals, to support productive and profitable British farmers, and to meet the Department’s key priority of achieving food security. Food security, as we all acknowledge, is national security—but, in a world of many different challenges, it is becoming harder to achieve. Precision breeding can play an important role. The right hon. Gentleman set out many of the opportunities associated with breakthrough precision breeding technologies and how they can help to transform and modernise our food system, making it fit for the future. I remember standing in fields near Bury St Edmunds with people from British Sugar and others, looking at varying degrees of decaying sugar beet plants attacked by virus yellows. We absolutely need to find ways of meeting that challenge. I was very struck by the comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) about potatoes. Farmers face real challenges. We need to equip them to meet those challenges. The Government have taken action in England by introducing a new science-based and enabling regulatory framework for precision breeding. With that cross-party support, we passed the secondary legislation needed to implement the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 for plants in England. It is absolutely vital that we support that work. It has also been recognised as a key part of engineering biology, a critical subsector within the Government’s recently unveiled industrial strategy. That is no surprise, because in our country we are renowned for scientific excellence. I represent Cambridge. We are home to a world-leading fundamental plant science research base, with regional clusters of excellence across the UK. I pay particular tribute to the work that goes on in and around Norwich, particularly the John Innes Centre. I am very proud of the work that goes on in this area, including in and around Cambridge in my part of the world and including the work of the National Institute of Agricultural Botany. The Government recognise the importance of unlocking the opportunities presented by precision breeding. I assure the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire that our commitment to financial investment is secure. In July 2024, we announced the latest round of crop genetic improvement network programmes—GINs—supported by up to £15 million in funding over five years to boost breeding research for key UK crops. The latest programme includes funding for research into precision breeding. Earlier this year, under the farming innovation programme, the Department announced a £12.5 million competition focused specifically on precision breeding, which the right hon. Gentleman specifically asked me about. As part of the industrial strategy, at least £200 million was allocated to the programme up to 2030, which precision breeding will continue to be in scope for. The right hon. Gentleman raised further concerns that I ought to address—in particular, the impact of the sanitary and phytosanitary agreement that we are working on with our European neighbours. He asked how precision breeding will fit into that. The new agreement will establish a common sanitary and phytosanitary zone between the UK and the EU, making agrifood trade with our biggest market cheaper and easier by cutting costs and red tape for businesses who export to and import from the European Union. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that, on the day that was secured, many food businesses were very pleased, because of the problems they have had over the last few years. On the precision breeding point, the EU has accepted that there will be a number of areas where we need to retain our own rules. With the principles and framework of a deal agreed, we will now need to negotiate the detail of an agreement. The Government have been absolutely clear about the importance of supporting new and innovative technologies, so we remain committed to moving forward with the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 and we have engaged with industry to help inform our approach to further discussions with the EU. We will continue to do so. Although the final legislation has not yet been agreed among EU legislators, the European Commission, as the right hon. Gentleman explained, published a proposal for the regulation of plants by, to use the EU terminology, “new genomic techniques”. We are monitoring the EU’s position closely and will continue to do so as progress is made in trilogue discussions. Those proposals are similar to those that we brought forward in the 2023 Act, but I fully acknowledge that the EU is behind us. That has been the argument for some years—indeed, going back all the way to that 2018 court case. We therefore understand that it will be some time before new legislation is implemented in the EU. However, that is a problem because this is a growing global sector and Europe is falling behind, so investment is going elsewhere—only 5% of venture capital investment in the sector currently comes to Europe. With the new regulations, we have the potential to be at the forefront across Europe and to be a major global competitor in this rapidly growing industry. We need to invest in this sector now, in order to realise the opportunities of precision breeding for tackling issues around climate change and food security. We do not have time to delay. Let me say a little about the devolved Governments. We recognise the valid concerns that people have raised about the issues of divergence within the UK—there was an intervention to that effect today—including the concern that farmers and businesses in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will miss out on the opportunities presented by the implementation of the 2023 Act for plants in England. That is why we continue to engage regularly with the devolved Administrations to discuss potential impacts. That engagement builds on regular monthly meetings with counterparts at official level and will support future ministerial engagement at the interministerial group. Input from the devolved Governments has been invaluable in shaping our approach and objectives to the agreement, ensuring that it will deliver tangible benefits for the whole of the UK. DEFRA has engaged closely with devolved Government officials and Ministers in the run-up to the UK-EU leaders summit, and will continue to do so as we prepare for detailed negotiations with the EU. The timing and format of negotiations will be subject to the outcome of further discussions, but we are committed to engaging closely throughout the negotiation phase to ensure access to timely and expert input from the devolved Governments. The right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire asked about the situation of animals in the 2023 Act, and many people are keen to know more about the Government’s plans and timelines. We are continuing the research that supports policy development of the animal welfare declaration. In keeping with the previous Government’s approach, which the right hon. Gentleman will remember from that time, while the research is continuing no decision has yet been made about bringing forward legislation to implement the 2023 Act in relation to animals. In conclusion, I again thank the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire for securing this debate. It is so important that we send out a powerful message to investors across the world that this is the place to come and invest. Harnessing innovation in precision breeding can help us to achieve several priorities, including bolstering food security and championing British farming, helping to mitigate and adapt to climate pressures, and driving the Government’s missions on growth and health. The growth potential of this industry is evident; we have the opportunity to be at the forefront of it. I am absolutely determined that that will be the case, and the Government strongly recognise the importance of precision breeding. Let me reiterate our commitment to that technology and to securing its success in our country. Question put and agreed to.

• 17 Jul 2025 · Global Plastics Treaty · Hansard source

  More

  I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are working with all interested parties to ensure that we make progress on this issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy) recently co-hosted a ministerial event at the UN ocean conference to bring together Ministers from a range of countries, representing all regions and ambition levels, to discuss the most challenging issues. As we look forward to August, it is clear that divergent views remain on key issues such as phasing out problematic products, how we approach the production of plastics and financing the treaty. However, it is our sense that the majority of countries want to reach an agreement at INC5.2, and there has been substantial discussion of how the treaty addresses plastic production. Many parties believe that plastic production is outside the scope of the agreement. However, the UK has been clear that the treaty should address the full life cycle of plastic, including sustainable production and consumption. At INC5.2, we will continue to work on that basis, to ensure that the treaty sends a signal to spur investment in the market for recycled plastic and to collect the data we need to ensure that the treaty works. A provision on problematic plastic products will be one of the core treaty provisions, and the UK has worked with Brazil to carry out technical work to support that provision. The UK has also supported the call from 95 countries in Busan for a clear, legally binding obligation to phase out the most harmful plastic products and chemicals of concern in plastics. Good progress was made at INC5 on text that provides a basis for further discussions. The key will be striking the right balance between national measures and harmonised global approaches and ensuring that measures are based on science. We are working with Chile to promote an effective provision on the design of plastic products to keep them in use for longer and make them easier to recycle. We recognise the importance of mobilising support for the countries most in need of agreement’s implementation. That is an essential element of an effective treaty. The UK supports the use of the Global Environment Facility to support the implementation of the treaty. That will avoid further fragmentation of the environmental financial architecture and allow for synergies with funding for climate and nature. As we have heard, plastic pollution is a broad issue, with a huge variety of actors across the plastics value chain. To mobilise the resources needed at scale, we must draw on an equally broad range of funding sources—public and private, domestic and international. The UK is the largest donor to the Global Plastic Action Partnership, contributing some £20.5 million. That partnership brings together Governments, businesses and civil society to tackle plastic pollution and increase investment in the circular economy in countries eligible for official development assistance. To end plastic pollution, we need all actors in the plastics value chain to act, and we need to bring everyone along with us. That includes the marginalised, undervalued and unrecognised waste pickers, most of whom are women. They handle more than half the world’s plastic waste for recycling, so it is really important that their voices are heard. It is essential that the treaty we agree is responsive to change and emerging evidence—it cannot operate effectively if one member has a de facto veto. As such, we need effective decision-making processes, including the possibility of voting on conference of the parties decisions and amendments to annexes once all options for achieving consensus have been exhausted. One thing is clear: addressing the problem of plastic pollution requires a joint effort between Government, industry, academia and civil society. We have partnered with the Ocean Plastics Leadership Network to run the UK treaty dialogues ahead of each round of negotiations. Those dialogues have included actors at all stages of the plastics value chain, as well as academia and environmental non-governmental organisations. They have helped us to understand diverse views on the treaty, which in turn have informed our approach to negotiations. In June, my ministerial colleague and hon. Friend, the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice, hosted a business roundtable to discuss how the private sector can support an ambitious plastic pollution treaty. It was the second plastics treaty business roundtable, and brought together businesses from across the plastics value chain. Those roundtables were attended by His Excellency Ambassador Vayas, the INC chair. Twenty leading businesses have now signed a statement calling for an effective treaty, and four non-private sector organisations have endorsed that statement. The Government are also clear that any treaty must be informed by science, and I noted the comments made on that topic by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran). In that regard, we are deeply concerned to hear of the threats faced by scientists—an issue that has been raised by a number of contributors to this debate. Those threats are unacceptable. We remain steadfast in our commitment to the multilateral system and to an open, transparent and inclusive process. This has been a timely debate, as we approach final negotiations in Geneva. While there are many challenges to overcome, a vast amount of work is under way to find solutions to the many remaining issues. I heard the strong calls from my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), and I am confident that we can secure a robust and effective treaty. That is what the UK team will be pushing for in Geneva. Again, I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland for securing this debate.

• 17 Jul 2025 · Global Plastics Treaty · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to respond to the debate, so ably introduced by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael). He, along with every Member from across the Chamber who made a contribution, pointed out the seriousness of the issue and the urgent need for action. Plastic pollution is one of the biggest environmental issues that we face today. Once hailed as a miracle of modern invention, plastic is now one of our planet’s most persistent threats. Its greatest strength—durability—has become its darkest flaw. These materials are designed to last and do just that—for centuries. They do not simply disappear, but break down into tiny fragments, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) so ably pointed out, and these microplastics invade our beaches, rivers, fields and even our bodies. From the depths of the oceans to the cells of living creatures, plastic pollution is everywhere. For too long, plastic has littered our oceans and threatened our wildlife. Amounts of plastic entering the ocean are predicted to triple by 2040 compared with 2016. That is unacceptable. Plastic pollution does not respect boundaries. We urgently need to agree a plastics treaty to enable global action to address this, so with that in mind, I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and his Committee for their recent inquiry into the treaty, and for their letter of recommendations for the forthcoming negotiations on an international treaty to end plastic pollution. It is a very timely input, and I read it with interest as we finalised our preparations for the negotiations. I look forward to responding more fully in due course, but the Committee can be assured that this Government are taking every step to ensure that we secure an ambitious and effective global plastics pollution treaty. This will be both a tool for moving towards a circular economy and an opportunity to showcase some of the domestic action that the UK has taken. A circular economy is key to delivering our Government’s plan for change—to grow the economy, increase environmental resilience and improve the lives of hard-working people around the country. That is why our circular economy taskforce has brought together experts from across Government, industry, academia and civil society to develop the first circular economy strategy for England. It will include a road map on chemicals and plastics, deliver growth and fundamentally shift our relationship with the goods that we use every day, ending our throwaway society and stopping the avalanche of rubbish that is filling up our high streets, countryside and oceans, making reuse and repair the norm, and ending the throwaway society. A circular economy is an opportunity to grow our economy and make it more resilient, to improve lives in every part of the United Kingdom, and to protect our environment for generations to come. Domestically, the Government are already working with the devolved Governments to legislate across the UK for the ban on wet wipes containing plastic. From 1 June this year, the sale and supply of single-use vapes was banned across the UK. The deposit return scheme for single-use plastic and metal drinks containers in England, Northern Ireland and Scotland will launch in October 2027, which will drive our efforts to stop litter filling up our streets, rivers and oceans. I am grateful for the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) about the story in Scotland. Additionally, the extended producer responsibility for packaging came into effect on 1 January this year. It will move the full cost of dealing with household packaging waste away from local taxpayers and on to the packaging producers themselves. I was pleased to hear the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bangor Aberconwy (Claire Hughes) about the great successes of the Labour Government, working with people in Wales, on issues around recycling.

• 17 Jul 2025 · Global Plastics Treaty · Hansard source

  More

  Of course—absolutely. We are always working in collaboration, and we will do everything we can to ensure that. It is an important principle that has been established, and I am determined to ensure that it is successful. Next month, at the resumed fifth session of the intergovernmental negotiating committee, we will have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to agree an ambitious and effective international agreement to end plastic pollution. We want a treaty that tackles the full life cycle of plastics and promotes a circular economy. The UK has been a key advocate for an effective treaty throughout and is a founding member of the High Ambition Coalition to End Plastic Pollution—a coalition of nearly 70 countries from across all regions of the world. At INC5, the UK joined over 80 other ambitious countries to make clear the weight of support for an ambitious treaty. Recently, at the UN ocean conference in Nice, we joined nearly 100 countries in signing the Nice wake-up call for an ambitious international treaty to end plastic pollution. Those demonstrate the commitment to reaching an agreement at INC5.2 in August and the weight of support for an ambitious treaty. I am proud of the leadership role that the UK has taken in the negotiations, and we continue to take significant action to drive ambition and demonstrate leadership.