Daniel Zeichner MP: speeches

Speeches

• 24 Jun 2026 · Farming Road Map and Profitability Review · Hansard source

  More

  I commend all the hard work that has gone into both the road map and the profitability review by the civil servants, the ministerial team and so many people across the sector, including Baroness Batters. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that in the interests of food security we really need to think hard about how we boost food production in this country? That, I think, will need an embracing of new technologies. It will also need the ability to build new facilities. In the poultry sector, the investment is there, but we need to explain to the public that new investment would not only boost food production but improve animal welfare, biosecurity and environmental outcomes.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Forest City: West Suffolk · Hansard source

  More

  On that point about speculative building, I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is probably not a fan of big, bold projects of this kind, but does he agree that there is a very good example just down the road in Cambridge? The recent sale of Cambridge City airport to Homes England is an exciting initiative that will genuinely provide the homes and businesses we need.

• 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 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.

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

  More

  As ever, it is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stuart. I commend the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) on introducing this important debate. He will not be surprised to hear that I do not agree with everything that he said. The city I represent, Cambridge, has fantastic universities that rely strongly on international students, who we are very proud of. We rely on a functioning visa system to make the city prosper, but my constituency office deals daily with a steady flow of immigration and nationality cases from across a range of routes, including skilled worker visas, dependant visas, and family reunification, settlement and naturalisation applications. I suspect we will hear the same story from other Members. A city like Cambridge probably has a disproportionate number of such cases. A consistent theme across them is delays in the system and, I have to say, sometimes limited communication with the Home Office. It is hardly a new problem. I have been an MP for 11 years and it has always been the case. In many ways it may be improving, but it is still not good enough.

• 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.

• 10 Mar 2026 · Technology Sovereignty · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. I congratulate the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah). I have three quick anecdotal points and then a question for the Minister. Data sovereignty has been part of my life. I started my career as a trainee computer programmer at Shire Hall in Cambridge. My prime job was to carry the punch cards to the punch room to make sure that payroll ran properly. Anyone who dropped them was the least popular person in the entire institution, and at that time, the idea that that could be triggered by someone from elsewhere in the world would have seemed fanciful. A decade later, I was working for a major insurance company. We were struggling to deal with multiple records for the same clients, and we brought in the Americans. They were big people from Texas—really big people. When they went to the coffee machine, they came back with two coffees and two bags of crisps. But they could not solve the essential problem, and the question still remained: who was in control of the data? Fast-forward two further decades, and I am MP for Cambridge. A major American software provider came to talk to me about the cloud, and the same question arose again. I asked, “Where is the data?” They said they would build more data centres in the UK. I know that it is more complicated than that, but the question of sovereignty and independence is also partly about people. We have to maintain our own workforce. Let me quickly raise with the Minister an issue that has been coming up very strongly to the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee: funding changes at UK Research and Innovation. I think that this is an unfortunate unintended consequence of a laudable attempt by the new regime to implement the goal, set up a decade ago, to use resources more rationally. UKRI has fallen foul of the existing research council structures, meaning that even though the Government are putting more money in overall, people in the particle physics, astronomy and nuclear physics sector are facing 30% cuts. That cannot be UKRI’s intention. I hope that the Minister can confirm that it is not the Government’s intention, and that he will use his influence to get a rethink. Our technological sovereignty will not be secured if we are closing doors to future researchers and putting a key part of our research sector at risk.

• 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.

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

  More

  rose —

• 26 Feb 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T5. In Cambridge, like in many other places, many new homes will be built in the coming years, but we need to build communities, not just houses, and a cultural component is absolutely key to that. Will the Minister tell us what he is doing to ensure that happens?

• 24 Feb 2026 · EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. I commend the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins). There is a thirst to discuss this in the Chamber—apart from the shadow Minister’s side; he looks rather lonely. Cambridge was one of the most pro-remain areas in the UK. I am proud that the Market ward in central Cambridge had the highest remain vote anywhere in the country; I share that view with a passion. That early morning of 24 June 2016 in an empty sports centre in Chelmsford, where the votes in the east of England were being counted, was one of the lowest points of my political life. I accept that the vote was lost in 2016, but the years that followed have cost us dear. In the science and research field, we have clawed our way back into Horizon, but look at the damage done: relationships broken and ground lost that will take years to rebuild. I am thrilled that the Government will return us to the Erasmus scheme, which, as the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry said, has done so much to enrich lives, although again years have been lost. As a Food Minister, I saw directly the problems that so many of our brilliant food producers have faced getting their products to European customers, such as all those export health certificates that had to be completed. That is why I am so pleased that the Government are doing the long, hard, painstaking work to build a new SPS agreement. Let me finish this brief contribution on that positive note. If that day in Chelmsford was a low point, the agreement of the SPS process last year was one of the high points. As Food Minister, I was privileged to be with a number of major food companies in the Downing Street garden celebrating that occasion. Pieces of cake with EU and UK flags were a joy to see. That was a sight that would bring joy to so many of my Cambridge constituents who are passionate Europeans. Yes, a decade has been lost but we are now on the right path.

• 23 Feb 2026 · Firearms Licensing · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. I want to pay tribute to a stalwart of the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, Christopher Graffius, who died in his sleep last week. There were many issues on which we had different views, but he was extremely kind and helpful to me when I was a shadow Minister. He had a huge depth of knowledge and passion for the countryside and would have been following this debate closely. He was a true gentleman, and I hope that my hon. Friend will agree with me that we will all miss his kindness, integrity and fellowship.

• 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?

• 22 Jan 2026 · Emergency Preparedness · Hansard source

  More

  The advice from the previous Government was that households should stockpile three day’s-worth of non-perishable food and water. This week, The Guardian has reported that other European countries are looking at creating strategic food reserves. Can the Minister tell us a little more about his thinking on these issues?

• 13 Jan 2026 · Universities: Statutory Duty of Care · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making a very important speech. A few years ago, I and colleagues on the all-party parliamentary university group looked at these issues. What we found was a very inconsistent set of relationships between universities and local health services. Has my hon. Friend found that, too?

• 5 Jan 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T8. Cambridge University Press & Assessment has long experience of conducting in-country English tests for those seeking to come to the UK, but it is concerned that the Home Office is moving too quickly to a new digital system whereby applicants do not have to attend in person to be tested. It fears that the scope for impersonation remains too high, so will the Minister review that change?

• 17 Dec 2025 · UK-EU Common Understanding Negotiations · Hansard source

  More

  I commend my right hon. Friend for his diligent and detailed work on this. It really is proper grown-up politics, as he said. The return of Erasmus will be widely welcomed in Cambridge, where it has helped many young people in the past and will help an even wider group in the future. Could I just press him on the SPS agreement? I think he confirmed that we will see the back of the wretched export health certificates in 2027. If so, it is a fantastic change. Is that correct?

• 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?

• 4 Dec 2025 · Food Security · Hansard source

  More

  8. What assessment he has made with Cabinet colleagues of the effectiveness of cross-Government working on food security.

• 3 Dec 2025 · Ely: Railway Upgrade · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is making an important speech, and I strongly support what she is doing. Would she agree with me that the enthusiasm for East West Rail now makes the case for doing the works on Ely junction even stronger?

• 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.