Daniel Zeichner
MP for Cambridge · Labour · United Kingdom
“I recall, as a shadow Minister, visiting a major institution in the country and sending the management into panic when I asked them where the bus stop was to get back to the station.”
“My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the location of bus stops. I am so frustrated when I have taken the train to Cambridge, arrive at the station, see the bus, but have to walk 200 yards around the platform, come out of the station and walk 200 yards back to the bus stop, to find the bus has gone.”
“Devolution and local government reorganisation are different things. To be honest, they should probably be considered separately, but they have become so interlinked and intertwined in this debate that it is impossible to do so. If we are to have a stronger devolution settlement, it is right to spend more time getting it right.”
“I commend the Secretary of State and his team for their determination and resolve in the transfer to renewables. In the extraordinary and unprecedented weather that we are having at the moment I can assure the House that some shade would be really welcome in parts of the east of England.”
“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.”
“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 complete record
Every one of 5,991 lines we hold for Daniel Zeichner, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 8 of 120.
“We aim to set catch limits that take account of the best available scientific advice, but we will always back our British fishing industry and, through negotiations, push for the best possible opportunities for British vessels. That is a complicated set of trade-offs and negotiations. Many different parts of the sector come to me, quite rightly, to make their case, and they do it well, but we have to get the best deal for everybody. In that spirit, in our bilateral negotiations with Norway for 2025 we trialled a new approach by working closely in partnership with UK industry representatives to develop a package of quota exchanges. This approach stems from our commitment to putting more emphasis on delivering our policies and programmes in partnership with stakeholders—we are working with the industry, so it is not just us doing it.”
“Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) about the figures, although I take slight issue with her: yes, 769,000 tonnes of quota is down a little, but I am told that its value is slightly up, at £1.04 billion—it is about the same. The issue is that our share has remained constant while the overall amount has fallen on scientific advice. We need to be mindful of this issue. One thing on which everybody agrees is that it is essential that we follow scientific advice. We obviously have to interpret that advice in line with legislation and policy, but we still have the global challenge of maintaining our fish stocks. As an independent coastal state, our approach to all negotiations has been driven by our domestic priorities, and sustainability is at the heart.”
“It is timely because we published reports on the sustainability and economic outcomes of the negotiations just last week, so I thank the hon. Member for St Ives for securing it now. The independent sustainability outcomes report states that the number of fish stocks, set in line with scientific advice, stayed the same for 2025 compared with last year, while the economic outcomes report details the UK fishing opportunities for all UK quota stocks in 2025. As mentioned by the Select Committee Chair, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), those reports are quite complicated. I recognise the point made by the hon.”
“Fishing is, of course, a very challenging job, and as the hon. Member for Epping Forest rightly said, sadly it is too often dangerous. It is therefore always right to pay tribute to those who have been injured or have tragically lost their lives at sea over the last year. The Marine Accident Investigation Branch published its 2023 annual report in October, in which it detailed the tragic loss of four lives and the loss of three fishing vessels in 2023. It is always important that we remember that. It is also important that the good work to improve safety continues—I will touch on the regulatory issues later—and that safety is paramount. I am afraid that there is still under-reporting, as the marine accident investigation branch flags up. This debate is about the fisheries negotiations for 2025 and the impact on the industry.”
“I very much enjoyed seeing the diversity of the fishing fleet in Newlyn and the fish market, and listening to the views of fishing and seafood businesses. It is only by having direct discussions with people working on the frontline that I can be properly informed. It is all very well sitting around having policy discussions, but it is best to hear from those people. I want to restate at the outset just how important the fishing sector is as a source of sustainable food for our country—a number of Members made that point. There are also wider social, economic and cultural issues surrounding that historic sector. As the Secretary of State has said repeatedly, the Government are keen to co-create policy through listening to fishermen and their representatives. That will enable us to create better policy.”
“Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) pointed out, this is a complicated sector. I will try to cover as many of the points that Members made as possible. I say that to give them a sense of where I am going and so they do not feel that I am leaving them out. I will start with some general points, and then touch on the reset with the European Union and say a bit about the spatial squeeze. I will then address the very detailed points that the hon. Member for St Ives made. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his very thoughtful and sensible introduction, which covered a range of issues. I reiterate how much I enjoyed that visit in the glorious late summer last year—it seems quite a long time ago now.”
“It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Mr Vickers. I thank the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) for securing this debate. I welcome the opportunity to talk about the UK’s fishing and seafood industry and particularly the impact of quota negotiations on the UK fishing fleet in 2025. I thank all Members for their constructive and thoughtful remarks. I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson) said, particularly about cetacean hunts. I assure him that we have pressed that case at every opportunity, and that is exactly why we will be proceeding with electronic monitoring. We have common cause on some issues. We have heard from Members from all around the United Kingdom—Northern Ireland, England, Scotland and, of course, the south-west—and the views of hugely diverse interests. As my hon.”
“We need to achieve a whole range of things in our waters, and food is one of them. That will only get more difficult in the coming period, but we have established a very good process for resolving these issues through our marine spatial prioritisation programme. We will take a strategic approach to managing those dilemmas, but I do not underestimate how strongly people in the fishing sector feel about this—it has been raised with me repeatedly. I insisted that we put out the very strong written statement a few weeks ago on protecting the fishing sector.”
“In 2026, the fisheries heading of the trade and co-operation agreement will see access for EU vessels into the UK zone become a matter for annual negotiation, to sit alongside our annual consultations on catch limits with a range of coastal states and international fora on fishing opportunities. That is a very important point. Our ambitions for fisheries are no longer tied to the EU common fisheries policy. We have our own objectives, and we are making progress on things like fisheries-management plans, which are very important. That is central to our priorities for UK fisheries and the thriving, sustainable industry we want. Clearly, one of the biggest issues facing the sector is the spatial squeeze, and I want to send a message to the industry that I am absolutely determined to stand up for our fishing sector.”
“The Government are absolutely committed to a reset with the European Union, but I assure the House of my determination that we get a good outcome for the fisheries sector. We have proven our ability to build a strong relationship with the EU on fisheries matters, including through the quota negotiations. We have had five years of annual negotiations, and we have built strong foundations on which to take forward future agreements that benefit our shared fish stocks and our respective industries. Other countries are clearly pushing very hard, and we will push equally hard for our sector.”
“I hear the hon. Gentleman’s point, and I will go away and discuss it further. Virtually every Member who spoke talked about our relationship with our near neighbours in the European Union. Clearly there is a negotiation going on by proxy, if not directly, at the moment, so I will not comment on the individual points that have been made other than to reflect that we are determined to get the best possible outcome for our nation. I am determined to get the best possible outcome for our fishing sector, because there is a widespread sense that people were sold short last time around. The temporary adjustment period for fisheries access ends in 2026, as was agreed in the UK-EU trade and co-operation agreement.”
“We are working with the EU in the Specialised Committee on Fisheries to facilitate consideration of the data by the relevant ICES working group to improve our scientific understanding and to encourage the most appropriate management. There is ongoing work, but I appreciate that this is a concern. The scientific work on pollack is due in June, and I will go away and look at it more closely before coming back to the hon. Member for St Ives. I want to give the hon. Gentleman a minute to respond, so I will bring my remarks to a conclusion. I very much appreciate the wide range of challenges facing the sector, and I understand why people are feeling anxious and fraught. This is a difficult time, but we tackle it by working together in close collaboration. I am determined that we work and listen closely.”
“Voluntary guidelines have been developed by the Angling Trust and the Professional Boatman’s Association to encourage anglers to adopt a bag limit and a minimum conservation reference size, as well as closed seasons to avoid the spawning period, and the use of descending devices to reduce pollack mortality. We want to see whether those measures can work, but if they do not, I am prepared to introduce mandatory measures. I appreciate that this is still a very difficult question. Moving on briefly to sole, the issue of 7h and 7e is quite complicated. This is probably an incomprehensible conversation for people outside the industry, but we are looking closely at the potential genetic connection between the two.”
“Gentleman is perhaps not entirely what he wants to hear. We agreed with the EU a bycatch-only TAC for pollack, which equates to a UK share of 172 tonnes of pollack in area 7 for 2025. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about abundance, but the ICES advice is what we have to follow. Its advice is for a zero catch, as last year, and it does not see signs of recovery. That is clearly a problem in the short term. We are forecasting to allow for a 20% increase in stock biomass next year. I understand the strength of feeling on the recreational pollack fishing industry, and we have sent a clear signal that this is the last opportunity for this to work for the recreational sector.”
“The Crown Estate plays an important role, and we are working together closely. Things have improved. It has not always been an easy relationship, but we have a strong process and I am confident that it will work successfully. I am conscious of time, so I will address some of the points that have been raised, particularly in relation to the south-west. I am very much taken by what the hon. Member for St Ives said about low-impact fishing. These are complicated issues, but I am pleased that, from January 2025, the licence cap of 350 kg of quota species has been removed for the under-10s. That was quite contentious a while ago, but it gives fishers greater flexibility to diversify between quota and non-quota species. The pollack issues are clearly fraught and complicated, and I am afraid that my advice to the hon.”
“I will not, as I want to give the hon. Member for St Ives a moment to respond. As I said back in November, I genuinely think there is a bright future for the fishing sector, and it is important that we understand it is a key source of food. The Government are absolutely committed to making the most of these opportunities to ensure that we can properly contribute to food security and economic growth.”
“They are part of the move away from the basic payment scheme that saw 50% of the money go to the top 10% of farms, while doing little for food production or nature. We are now in the fifth year of the seven-year transition away from those subsidies, and some of us have been involved in these same discussions year on year over those five years. The reductions to delinked payments set out in this draft instrument were announced last October. They accelerate the end of the era of payouts to large and wealthy landowners simply for owning land.”
“I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Agriculture (Delinked Payments) (Reductions) (England) Regulations 2025. It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. The draft regulations were laid before the House on 13 February. They set out the reductions that will apply to delinked payments in England in 2025. The reductions are part of the transition to more targeted public investment, supporting farmers to boost nature and sustainable food production. The Government will support businesses to be more profitable, addressing the underlying problems. Delinked payments do not achieve that. Delinked payments do not offer and have never offered good value for money for farmers or the taxpayer.”
“I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. I will come to broader arguments about what we are putting in place in a moment, but the reason why it appears that no impact statement was done is that impact statements were done earlier in the process, when this was all looked at as a consequence of the Agriculture Act 2020 being passed. I am happy to point him back to all the charts and figures that were available at the time and have been available throughout.”
“The hon. Gentleman is right up to a point, but he is missing the point of the agricultural transition, which is a move to environmental land management payments. The economic impact is a secondary consequence. All those figures were there, however, and still hold good.”
“We are applying the reductions in payment bands in the same way as the income tax bands work, which means that those with the broadest shoulders will see the highest reductions. I assure the Committee that every penny of the reductions in delinked payments stay within the sector. The planned reductions will help to fund investment in environmental land management schemes and our other grants for farmers. Our support for farmers remains absolutely steadfast. We have committed £5 billion to the farming budget over a two-year period, with £2.4 billion of that for 2025-26. That includes the largest ever budget directed at sustainable food production and nature recovery in our country’s history.”
“A technical reason why an impact assessment was not produced is that this is not a regulatory provision; however, we publish regular statistics on farm incomes and other data related to farm businesses. That includes the farm business income statistics published on 14 November 2024, and the plethora of farming evidence packs, which I refer Conservative Members to. I am sure they will find plenty of information available, including the recent figures, which suggest that farm incomes last year were rather better than previously. I hope we can proceed on the basis that we are moving to a different system, which is about environmental land management. I recognise the impact that the changes will have on some farmers, which is why we are trying to introduce them in the fairest way possible.”
“A figure is a figure—£5 billion. Many thought that that would not be achieved in the spending review, and I am very proud of it. We are happy to be able to provide that amount of money, which is actually going out to farmers, rather than being held back as it was under the previous Government, who failed to spend the money.”
“By investing in healthy soils, abundant pollinators and clean water, the Government are investing in the foundations that farm businesses rely on to produce high crop yields and turn a profit. Adopting the sustainable farming practices rewarded under our schemes will also help farmers to reduce their input costs. Reducing delinked payments as planned enables us to make those investments through our other schemes. That will serve the best long-term interests of farming. We are also developing a 25-year farming road map to make the sector more profitable in the decades to come. As we set out in our “Plan for Change”, we are focused on supporting farmers, supporting rural economic growth and boosting Britain’s food security.”
“We are continuing to invest in farmers through our other grant offers, with up to £110 million available in new grant competitions starting this spring. That includes up to £47 million for farming equipment and technology fund grants, as well as up to £63 million available for farming innovation programme grants. Those will help to improve productivity, trial new technologies and drive innovation in the sector. We are also expanding the animal health and welfare pathway, with more funded vet visits now available to farmers. Also, I am pleased that more than 26,000 farmers have made use of free one-to-one business support through the farming resilience fund to help them through the agricultural transition.”
“The new countryside stewardship higher tier offer will open for applications from invited farmers and land managers this summer. The stand-alone capital grants will also reopen this summer after a short pause. We are investing in about 50 landscape recovery projects, which were awarded funding through rounds 1 and 2. We recently announced increased payment rates for higher level stewardship across a range of options from this year. We are also extending the farming in protected landscapes programme until March 2026. That extension will support farmers in protected landscapes in transitioning towards profitable food production at the same time as delivering nature recovery and mitigating the impacts of climate change.”
“We will find ourselves arguing over definitions. Many farmers will now be environmental land managers and will be able to get money for schemes that protect nature. We have allocated £1.8 billion in 2025-26 for the environmental land management schemes. That will boost Britain’s food security and accelerate the transition to a more resilient and sustainable farming sector. We are on track to spend the budget in full. Furthermore, record numbers of farmers—50,000 farm businesses—are in our environmental land management schemes, and more than half of all farmed land in England, more than 4 million hectares, is now managed under such schemes. That includes about 38,000 live multi-year sustainable farming incentive agreements. We expect to publish more information about our revamped SFI offer following the spending review.”
“I praise you for your forbearance, Mr Twigg; at one point, I thought you might move a closure motion yourself, because we have strayed a long way from delinked payments. In fact, we seem to be back in the general farming debate from a couple of weeks ago. I am astonished at Opposition Members’ complete lack of understanding of their own policies. I remember sitting in the shadow Minister’s seat five years ago, discussing the Agriculture Act 2020. Indeed, I raised some of the same points that the shadow Minister raised today. However, we are in a transition from the previous scheme, which paid out to everybody—the common agricultural policy and the £80,000 scheme—to a different scheme. It was always the case that some people would not get the money.”
“In fact, the previous Government should be proud of some successes because we now have 37,900—maybe 38,000—people in SFI. We initially inherited a situation which was under-subscribed; it is now oversubscribed. That is a success. The question for the future is how we can find ways to bring more people in to it. The Opposition need to understand that once the budget has been spent, it is spent. We cannot keep spending time after time. That is a basic principle that they did not seem to understand in general when they were in government, and they are illustrating that again today. I am interested to know whether they understand the consequences of voting against the legislation today, because I can tell them what those are.”
“Of course, the hon. Gentleman will know that there was never clarity on the pace of that transition. I can also tell him that, despite his assertions earlier, the announcement on the changing level of delinked payments was actually made back in October—but I will make some progress now. It is astonishing that, listening to the Opposition, a person would not understand that the amount of money going into the system is exactly the same as before—in fact, it is more. The question is how it is distributed. There are legitimate grounds for a discussion on that, but that was never done by the previous Government. We inherited schemes and we have had to work with them. We will try to improve them, because I have many criticisms of them myself, but these are the previous Government’s policies that we are implementing.”
“Without this instrument, the spend on delinked payments in ’25-’26 would increase to £1.8 billion, leaving a £1.5 billion shortfall in the farming budget. They need to think carefully: they can vote against the instrument, demonstrating their complete financial irresponsibility and tying them back into the kind of approach they took in the previous Parliament, or they can be grown up and understand the consequences of their actions—but I can guess what they are going to do.”
“I said in the Chamber the other day that it was perfectly obvious that this would happen from the moment we introduced these new schemes. I knew five years ago that this would happen at some point. We monitor the schemes on a regular basis and the closure was decided a few weeks ago when it reached the limit— [ Interruption. ] I will not take any further interventions. Hon. Members present need to understand the consequences of voting against this statutory instrument. Without it, the agricultural transition effectively goes into reverse. No reductions at all will be applied to the payments. The subsidy levels would go back to what they were not in 2024, but in 2020. Hon. Members must think carefully about what they are voting for.”
“Not only is all the information the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley wants, but it has been published, had he chosen to look at it. Alongside that, the recently updated farming evidence packs set out an extensive range of data to provide an overview of agriculture in the UK and the contribution of farm payments to farm incomes, including analyses by sector, location and type of land tenure. My sense is that all this information is available—it is just that Opposition Members do not want to hear it.”
“The overall amount of money is, as we said, £5 billion over the two years. I had a decision to make back in October whether I could maintain the delinked payments at a higher level or put the money into SFI. I am unashamedly following the path that the previous Government set out for an agricultural transition to a better farming system. Opposition Members appear to be harking back to a system that most of us thought was completely discredited. I was asked about the impact assessments and what assessments we have made. Average farm business income is forecast to have risen for all farm types in ’24-’25, with the exception of cereal farms, as I referred to a few minutes ago. The projected contribution of delinked payments and agri-environment payments to farm incomes in 2024-25 is included in that average farm business income forecast.”
“This instrument is the essential next step as we continue to move away from the failed, untargeted payments of the past. It enables us to invest in the long-term future of farming while delivering for nature. I commend the regulations to the Committee. Question put.”
“No—I am going to conclude now. Delinked payments are not the answer to the long-term challenges farmers face, despite the Opposition’s hankering after them. This Government will not shy away from making the right and tough decisions to build a profitable and sustainable farming sector and to deliver Britain’s food security. Reductions in the 2025 delinked payments are necessary so that we can fund our committed and planned spend under our other farming schemes, which support sustainable food production, exactly as I have laid out, including meeting the unprecedented demand for capital grants, which will reopen in a few months’ time. The money released from the reductions to delinked payments is being fully reinvested through our other schemes. I reiterate that every penny is staying within the sector.”
“Around 500 claims each year will be impacted. Our reforms will mean that farmers will pay a reduced inheritance tax rate of 20%, rather than the standard 40%, and payments can be spread over 10 years interest free. Farm-owning couples can pass on up to £3 million without paying inheritance tax. In our view, this is a fair and balanced approach, and should be seen against the backdrop of the Government committing £5 billion for farming over two years—the largest budget directed at sustainable food production and nature’s recovery in our country’s history.”
“I hear the hon. Gentleman’s complaint, but I have been to Devon in my role before, and I will come to Devon again. I am always happy to meet farmers. I have spent quite a lot of time at this Dispatch Box answering questions from Conservative Members, so perhaps fewer questions will mean more time to go out and meet farmers.”
“I suggest that the shadow Minister goes out and speaks to a few more people, because I was stopped in a local village just this weekend and encouraged — [ Interruption. ] I am not going to name names, but he should check with some of his Conservative candidates in elections. They said, “Keep on going, you are doing the right thing.” The situation is not as the shadow Minister describes. He might do well to look at the figures for projected farm business incomes for this year, which show that in many sectors, those business incomes are doing rather well. That probably explains why people are not as exercised about it as him.”
“The hon. Gentleman always speaks with passion about his constituents, and I absolutely understand those concerns. He is right to say that the schemes we inherited did not reward those areas as well as they should. That is why in our announcement a few weeks ago, we increased the higher level stewardship payments by £30 million, which will be of particular advantage to people in his area. I agree with him, and the schemes we inherited were not good enough. That is why we are revising them.”
“The new national procurement policy statement sets out requirements for Government contracts, and favours high-quality products that we believe British producers are very well placed to supply. This will support our ambition to ensure that half of the food supplied for public sector catering comes from local producers, or those certified to higher environmental standards.”
“I am grateful for the question from my hon. Friend. We are absolutely determined to make the best of this opportunity, not least because the previous Government did not know how much we were actually buying. The Secretary of State has announced that we will monitor the food bought in the public sector, and that will inform our policy of making sure that British farmers make the most of the opportunity for public procurement.”
“As I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law), the first thing we needed to do was establish how much we are actually buying, and that is now in progress. I absolutely get the point about the urgency. The question is why doing this took the previous Government so long when they shared our ambition. We are determined to make this happen.”
“I am sure that my hon. Friend’s cats, who I am told are called Clem Cattlee and Mo Meowlam, will be delighted to hear that the Government are looking very closely at the Animal Welfare Committee’s opinion on the welfare implications of current and emergent feline breeding practices. I can assure them that we are carefully considering the committee’s recommendations.”
“The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Looking ahead, the future can be very exciting for farming, but as the Secretary of State said, we have to establish farming as a profitable sector. We will work with the hon. Gentleman’s farmers to ensure that vision is realised.”
“This is why we will be introducing a land-use framework—to ensure that we can make rational decisions about how land is used to best effect.”
“That road map stands on three principles, the first of which is a sector that has food production at its core. The role of farming will always be to produce the food that feeds our nation. The instability that we have seen, both relating to Ukraine and during covid, shows that food security truly is national security. The second principle is a sector in which farm businesses are more resilient and able to withstand the shocks that disrupt farming from time to time, whether it be severe flooding, drought or disease. We will help farmers who want to diversify their income to put more money into their business, so that they can survive those more difficult times when they come.”
“Farmers have struggled to get enough workers to pick fruit and veg, and frankly, they have been sold out in past trade deals. Farmland is increasingly at risk from severe flooding and drought, and this all comes as we face the biggest transition for farming in generations, moving away from the basic payment scheme towards more sustainable methods of farming. The underlying problem in the sector is that farmers do not make enough money for the hard work and commitment that they put in. We are absolutely committed to making farming more profitable, and that approach will underpin our 25-year farming road map and our food strategy, through which we will work in partnership with farmers to make farming and food production sustainable and profitable.”
“I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) and congratulate him on securing this very important debate on the future of farming. I will not say that I agreed with all his conclusions in his opening comments, although I listened to them closely, but I thank him and his fellow members of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee for their continuing work. I look forward to meeting his Committee in time. I am very grateful to have the opportunity to talk about the very important role that farming plays in this country, because food security is national security, and our commitment to farmers is absolutely steadfast. It is the hard work of the UK’s farmers that puts food on our tables and stewards our beautiful countryside. As we all know, though, the sector is facing high costs and tight margins.”
“That includes 37,000 live SFI agreements, meaning that 800,000 hectares of arable land is being farmed without insecticides, 300,000 hectares of low-impact grassland is managed sustainably and 75,000 km of hedgerows are being protected and restored. That is important for nature. We have already had a discussion about the SFI cap. It is set at £1.05 billion for 2024-25 and 2025-26. As we discussed yesterday, that cap was reached this week with a record number of farmers in the scheme and 37,000 live agreements. Every penny is now paid to farmers or committed for payment through existing agreements or submitted applications. We will continue to support farmers to transition to more sustainable farming models, and we will announce details of the revised scheme after the spending review.”