Maria Eagle
MP for Liverpool Garston · Labour · United Kingdom
“There is concern about this news among my constituents who work at JLR Halewood and those who work in the supply chain in the whole of the north-west of England.”
“We must bear in mind not only the inequality of arms, but the length of time taken to get through the legal actions, even if they proceed swiftly and well.”
“That was not a legal action; it was about transparency, freedom of information and being open. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has his frustrations about the fact that his well-intentioned health reforms are not operating as he would have wished.”
“Before he leaves the Chamber, I say to the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) that I agree very much with what he said about transparency and its importance. He made the point that lawyers are sometimes a problem. Obviously, the legal system, in which I used to be a participant, is adversarial.”
“Although such powers are not in this Bill, because it is too narrow in scope for them to be included, I hope that my new clause 1 on producing a report within 12 months of the passing of this Bill on how the Independent Public Advocate is working and the impact of the Act’s provisions on increasing public confidence—a public advocate with…”
“She was right in the end. She knew absolutely what had happened to her son, because she went and found out. She knew that the inquest verdicts were wrong, so she wanted to focus on that. But on the whole the families kept together and were able to decide how they would go forward.”
The complete record
Every one of 600 lines we hold for Maria Eagle, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 8 of 12.
“First, I thank the Minister for Defence People and Families for inviting me to visit the defence serious crime unit, which I did last Thursday. The people there are obviously doing good work focused on tackling serious sexual and violent crimes in the armed forces. Given the doubling of reports of bullying, discrimination and harassment in the Ministry of Defence since 2019, and some cases remaining unresolved for up to three years, what is the Minister doing to address the toxic culture in his Department? Why is it that such things seem to be worsening on this Government’s watch?”
“Forty-six of 52 major projects are not on time or not on budget. Ajax was supposed to be in service in 2017, and £4 billion has been spent so far, but there are no deployed vehicles and it will not be in service until the next decade. It is no wonder the Secretary of State is not listening and is too busy chatting—he does not want to hear about the failures of defence procurement on his watch, or the Government’s cost-saving cuts to E-7 Wedgetail, which are cutting the number of planes from five to three, with taxpayers footing 90% of the original cost to get only 60% of the planned capability.”
“In government, Labour will renew the country’s commitment to those who serve, set new standards for service accommodation and legislate for an armed forces commissioner to act as a strong independent champion for our forces and their families to improve service life. We will fully incorporate the armed forces covenant into law, fulfilling the moral contract that our society makes with those who serve. I noticed that the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes), who speaks for the SNP, said that he wanted a representative body but was willing to support some of Labour’s proposed policies. On procurement, the Conservatives have wasted over £15 billion of taxpayers’ money through mismanagement of defence procurement programmes, with over £5 billion wasted since 2019 alone.”
“Nearly half of all serving personnel live in the lowest grade single-living accommodation and more than 4,000 personnel live in accommodation so poor that the MOD is forced to reduce or scrap collecting rent altogether. Contractors hired by Ministers missed 21,000 maintenance appointments between April 2022 and February 2024. The report of the independent Kerslake commission on armed forces housing entitled “Homes unfit for heroes” has called the state of forces housing “a tax on the goodwill of service personnel and their families.” During the cost of living crisis, the numbers of personnel and veterans on universal credit are rising, and some troops are even using food banks to get by.”
“Those are the facts. Recruitment targets have been missed every year, so the Government have not even been able to recruit the numbers they want, and retention rates are dropping. My hon. Friend the Member for Halton referred in his remarks to the “outflow” and the state of reserve forces in respect of some research that he has been doing into the numbers. Therefore, the past 14 years have corroded the nation’s contract with those who serve, and we must do better. The Government have left personnel living in damp and mouldy housing and, perhaps not surprisingly, morale has fallen, as has retention. Is it any wonder, when we leave people living in the conditions that we have seen in some of our forces accommodation?”
“Member for Rayleigh and Wickford saying that the Defence Committee—the Chair of which is also in his place—will be scrutinising the £75 billion figure. I look forward to hearing what it has to say when it has done so. The truth is that the Conservatives have failed on defence over the past 14 years. They have cut spending and they are still doing so. They have hollowed out our armed forces. Since 2010, the Conservatives have reduced our armed forces by more than 43,000 personnel, one in five ships has been removed from the Royal Navy, and more than 200 aircraft have been taken out of service in the past five years alone. They have cut the British Army to its smallest size since Napoleon, while the threats are increasing and NATO is boosting its high-readiness forces from 40,000 to 300,000. Ministers now plan to cut the Army further.”
“Friend the shadow Defence Secretary said that people will judge the Government on what they do, not on what they say, and that is absolutely right. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham said that the Government’s promises were all smoke and mirrors and soundbites for the next general election, and it is hard to see them as anything else when they have been left so late in this Parliament to be announced. The Institute for Government has said that the Government’s plan does not add up and is not credible. It says that cutting 70,000 civil service jobs will get nowhere near close to delivering the savings needed and that, even when using our research and development budgets as well, it will leave questions about how the rest will be paid for. The House welcomed the right hon.”
“That is why we are committed to getting back to 2.5% as soon as we can in a responsible way. We will set out a credible plan to do so if we win the general election. It is why we will hold a strategic defence and security review if we do get into government to look properly at the threats that we face and at what we are already spending. It is simply not credible to claim, as the Government do, that it can be done by firing 72,000 civil servants, as the Secretary of State set out. The last time that this Government promised to make their defence plans add up by firing MOD civil servants in 2015, the number of civil servants in the MOD increased, so it is hardly credible now to claim that that will do the job. In his opening remarks, my right hon.”
“We believe that defence procurement can strengthen UK sovereignty, security and economic growth. There has been much talk about the commitment to 2.5% of GDP, so I wish to make it clear that Labour is totally committed to 2.5%. In fact, the last time defence spending was at 2.5% was under a Labour Government in 2010. The current Conservative Government have cut defence spending. It has never been 2.5% in any of the past 14 years of Tory Government and we have seen the Army cut to its smallest size since Napoleon. My right hon. Friends the Members for Warley and for North Durham and my hon. Friend the Member for Halton made those points very well in their contributions. Labour will always do what is needed to defend Britain and we will always spend what is necessary to deal with the threats that we face.”
“Theirs is the ultimate public service, and their professionalism and bravery are rightly respected across the world. We thank them. Labour is committed to strengthening our national defences and supporting our armed forces. Strong national defence is a secure foundation upon which Labour’s mission-driven Government will be built if we are fortunate enough to win the general election when it comes. Labour’s commitment to NATO is unshakeable. We are the party of NATO and Labour’s values of democracy, freedom and peace are embedded in its founding treaty. Article 5 is the cornerstone of Labour’s commitment to Britain’s security. Labour’s support for nuclear deterrence is total. We will upgrade the UK’s deterrent and build the new submarines needed at Barrow.”
“Members for Harwich and North Essex, for North Wiltshire, for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti), for Bracknell (James Sunderland) and for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely); and from other Opposition parties by the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord). It has been an excellent debate. The first duty of any Government is to keep the nation safe and protect our citizens. From deployments abroad and the response to the invasion of Ukraine to deployments at home during the covid-19 pandemic, our armed forces are essential to our national defence, our national resilience and meeting our NATO obligations. Labour is deeply proud of our armed forces personnel, veterans and their families, and of the contribution that they make to our country.”
“May I begin by welcoming the debate? As the hon. Members for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) and for North Wiltshire (James Gray) said, we used to have more of these debates, but it is very good we have had one in Government time. While the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) said we are down to the usual suspects, it still has been a high-quality debate. There were excellent speeches from the Labour Benches by my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) and by my right hon. Friends the Members for Warley (John Spellar) and for North Durham (Mr Jones); from the Government Benches by the right hon. Members for Horsham (Sir Jeremy Quin), for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) and for New Forest East, and the hon.”
“Under a future Labour Government, we will drive deep defence procurement reform inside the MOD to reduce waste and ensure that our armed forces have the kit they need to defend Britain. Labour is committed to strengthening our national defence and supporting our armed forces and their families. We will always do what is necessary to defend the country, and we will always spend what is necessary to deal with the threats that we face. Britain will be better defended under Labour.”
“I accept that that will be a difficult job, but I think there is acceptance across the House that it needs to be done. At the moment, it is fair to say that the Government have been wasting taxpayers’ money hand over fist, and that is not just waste in procurement. Parliamentary answers show that the Department has lost £927 million to fraud since 2010, with £619 million of that since 2019—that would be enough to pay for 170 Challenger 3 tanks—yet the average length of time for Fraud Defence to conduct an investigation has increased from 519 days in 2019 to 742 days in 2023. Why? The Government seem to have stopped focusing on good administration. A Labour Government will do better.”
“I accept that fact. If I said the next decade, that was not what I meant to say. The Public Accounts Committee has described the defence procurement system as “broken and repeatedly wasting…taxpayers’ money.” My right hon. Friend the Member for Warley was right that we need an industrial base and that short-term cost cutting will not do. He said that we need to speed up procurement, especially of administration, when it comes to making these decisions. The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford said that we need a change of culture as well as reform in procurement, as did the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex, who set out his ideas about how best to change culture in organisations that can be quite resistant to change.”
“Defence procurement can strengthen UK sovereignty, security and economic growth. We on the Opposition Benches believe that defence investment should be directed first to UK businesses, so that we make, buy and sell more in Britain. With that in mind, what steps is the Minister taking in his rapid review to ensure that social value considerations properly take into account the huge advantages to the UK economy of awarding more contracts to British businesses, so that we create more defence jobs here in the UK? That does not seem to happen at present.”
“As the former Defence Secretary, the right hon. Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace), told the House last January, the Government have “hollowed out and underfunded” the UK military over the last 14 years. That is in large part due to their total failure on armed forces recruitment, and damning new figures show that over the last decade, 800,000 people who were willing to serve and defend their country simply gave up and withdrew their application. The current Defence Secretary says that the recruitment system is “ludicrous”, and the organisation running it got called the wrong name by the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), but where is the plan to fix this? It is not working.”
“My hon. Friend is making an interesting contribution. From her research, has she any idea to what extent the regulations are enforced to crack down on ear cropping, which is already illegal in Britain, but which we know still goes on? It is all very well not bringing in dogs that have had their ears cropped, but what does she think is happening to enforce the current law?”
“My hon. Friend is making points that others have not made, so this is a very valuable contribution. Will she say something about how animals coming in that perhaps have not had those vaccinations, or that are not properly certificated as such, can cause devastation to farming communities like hers, because the diseases they carry do not necessarily stick to one individual species? This can be a real issue for an entire community. It is all very well having a law, but enforcement is the key to stopping these problems arising.”
“The hon. Member is obviously very passionate about this issue. Does she have any thoughts about enforcement? There is widespread support around the House for the measures in the Bill, but the issue of enforcement is key to ensuring that we really do stamp out the puppy smuggling trade.”
“I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way on that point, because it was my private Member’s Bill that led to the 2000 Act. Although it was talked out on Report by then Opposition MPs who did not like the word “prohibition”, it was adopted by the Labour Government and passed into law, which was a very good thing and led to a European-wide ban on fur farming.”
“The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech. Given his experience as a vet, to what extent does he think that enforcement is an issue? I think that there is widespread support around the House for the provisions in the Bill, but enforcement is key. Does he think that that is getting better or worse?”
“Does my hon. Friend agree that many XL Bully dogs are imported illegally? That is one of the reasons why what she is saying is in order. I hope you agree, Mr Deputy Speaker.”
“The only issue is whether this Parliament will last long enough for her to get the Bill all the way on to the statute book. Obviously, it has to go through the other place and its remaining stages here. If the Bill passes Second Reading today, there are a few Bills ahead of it, so there is a bit of a queue in Committee. My advice to her, as somebody who sort of managed to get a private Member’s Bill on to the statute book by forcing the Government to do it later, is to not stop fussing behind the scenes: do not stop pressing and pushing them to make sure that if the Bill passes Second Reading, and it looks very much as if it will—”
“We are indeed a nation of animal lovers, so she has done well to select this issue. I am not being unpleasant to her if I say that she seems to have had some help with the drafting. Given the issue’s complications, that is probably a good thing. I am sure the Government have improved on the drafting of the more comprehensive animal welfare Bill that they withdrew, which included some of these issues. I can compliment the hon. Lady on one other thing, before I move on to the substance of the Bill, which is that she is implementing a manifesto commitment of her party. That is more than the Government have managed to do so far from their own Front Bench, so she should be congratulated on that too. It is not a usual or easy thing to do.”
“I congratulate the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on bringing the Bill forward and on coming up in the private Members’ Bill ballot. That is not easy—it has only happened to me once in 26 years—so she has done well. The hon. Lady has picked an issue that is very important to many Members from across the House. I can say for sure that over the years I have been a Member—as I say, it is now 26 years—the postbag I have received, either by letter or more recently by email, text and social media, has been overwhelmingly dominated by those constituents who write to me about improving animal welfare. I suspect my experience is not dissimilar to that of many other Members, and that we all get a big postbag from our constituents raising animal welfare issues.”
“Perhaps the Minister, when he comes to reply, can let us know whether ferrets are there purely as a rabies control measure, or whether there is evidence that there is abuse in the importation of ferrets? I do not have a wide knowledge of that, so I would be interested to know whether the issues facing ferrets are similar to those of dogs and cats, or whether the fact that they are in the short title of the Bill is simply to do with disease control. To my mind, that is a good enough reason, but I wonder whether there should be further provisions on the safety of ferrets that are not set out in the regulations so far. I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say.”
“The changes that are being made to those limits can only be entirely good, for the reasons that have been made by other Members during the course of this debate and that I will not repeat. Ferrets are included in the short title of the Bill. The hon. Member for North Devon was kind enough to respond to me when I intervened on her, saying that the reason that ferrets had been included is that they can get rabies, so there is something desirable to be said about controlling the import of ferrets. That, for me, is a good enough reason to include them in the short title of the Bill, but I have noticed that we do not seem to have had a lot of representations about ferrets, or examples of the abuse of ferrets in the way that we have in respect of dogs and cats.”
“Member for North Devon on getting a few more details on precisely what is going to be done into primary legislation. That holds to the feet of whatever Government are then trying to implement the legislation to the fire, and there is something to be said for that. The change in the law that the hon. Lady is seeking to make is good in respect of dogs and cats, as has been mentioned by a number of hon. Members. Currently, the lower age limit to import a dog or cat is 15 weeks. Pregnant dogs and cats may be imported—as the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson), who has extra knowledge of these things, mentioned— until the last 10% of their pregnancy. Up to five dogs or cats can be imported per person, and the owner can authorise somebody else to travel for them.”
“The Bill takes up some of the provisions that were in the more comprehensive Bill that, as I recall, the Government withdrew in 2023. They have been trying to legislate on this issue since the 2019 election, when it was in their manifesto, so I think it is a good thing that the hon. Lady is bringing forward these provisions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (James Murray) said, there is a little extra detail in this Bill than was apparent in the original legislation. That is also a good thing. It is not correct, as is the modern fashion in legislative drafting, to leave everything to the regulations; sometimes it is a good idea to have the provisions in primary legislation. That might make me a bit old fashioned, but I do think that there is something to be said for it. I congratulate the hon.”
“I am very glad to hear that, because it certainly gives her a better chance of making sure the Government do not go soft or slack when it comes to doing the necessary things to ensure the Bill ends up on the statute book. She would be congratulated by many from across the House if she managed that. Obviously, the regulations will have to be written and consulted on. The Bill has to go through the Committee and Report stages in this House. There is a concertina effect on when private Members’ Bill Fridays are coming up, so she will have to get the Bill through Committee fast. That would be my other little bit of advice: there is a queue of Bills ahead of her that have passed Second Reading, so she needs to keep pushing in the right direction.”
“Perhaps, at the end of this Parliament, the Minister will be able to stand up and say that he actually managed to do this and got it right to where it needs to be, and perhaps he will be able to reassure us about enforcement and punishment.”
“That having been said, let me finish by congratulating the hon. Lady on bringing forward this piece of legislation. She said she is tenacious and she will have to be to get all this done before the Prime Minister calls a general election. I know that she will stick at it, and let us hope that we will then be able to get this Bill on to the statute book and do some of the good that it purports to want to do. This will work only if the Government can reassure us that they are going to get on with the regulations and get this working as soon as possible. They have spent the whole of this Parliament saying that they are going to do this without managing to do it yet.”
“If it does not, the law will sit there and not work in the way in which its supporters in this House, who come from across the Chamber, wish it to work. I welcome the Bill very much. I congratulate the hon. Lady on choosing it, when she fortuitously came up in the ballot in the way in which she did. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure its supporters from around the Chamber—very many of us have spoken in support today—about precisely what will happen on enforcement and what the penalty and punishment regime will be. It is all very well getting the law right, but if we do not then enforce it by catching the perpetrators and pursuing them through the law to the maximum available opportunity, these lucrative trades will continue and we will still have problems with animal welfare in this country.”
“I have raised this in a number of interventions during the debate, and the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border had something to say about it too. Having the law on the statute book is a good first step, but it does not stop abuse of the law—it is enforcement that does that. So will the hon. Member for North Devon or the Minister say something about enforcement? Since the 2021 Act increased the maximum penalties for animal abuse, has the number of prosecutions increased? Have people gone to jail? Have they gone to jail for more than six months, which was the previous maximum term? This is a lucrative trade and those who smuggle puppies can make hundreds of thousands of pounds, so the enforcement, penalty and punishment regime needs to match the scale of that potential profit.”
“Will breaches of this legislation be punished through the provision of that Act, or is that to be done by some other regime of punishment and penalty somewhere else? Obviously, in a comprehensive Bill the penalties would probably be included with all the provisions. Given that the Government, with the help of the hon. Member for North Devon, have chosen to slice and dice their approach to animal welfare legislation and bring forward separate Bills, I hope the Minister will be able to explain where the penalties are written and what they will be. Are they being increased? Can they be increased by regulation? What penalties and punishments might he expect those who fall foul of this improved legislation to meet if they continue in their nefarious activities? That brings me to the other point I wish to raise, which is about enforcement.”
“It is all very well for us all to object to the cruel and appalling way in which animals have been abused and treated in great numbers by those seeking to make profit out of their misery, but the only way we can make sure that that ceases is by having good, effective enforcement and by ensuring that those who seek to profit in this way are made an example of through the courts. I know that the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021 increased the sentences for animal cruelty from a maximum of six months to five years, but it is not totally apparent to me—the Minister might be able to enlighten us, if he is listening—whether that Act provides the enforcement and penalty regime for this Bill.”
“My hon. Friend now has that on the record. I do not really know what else to say about that, except that I am sure that Oscar brought her brother great joy. That is what pets do. I am sure there are many other ferret owners who might attest to the same thing. My interest in ferrets is purely because they are in the short title of the Bill, yet there does not seem to be any evidence that there is abuse. That is why I keep raising the issue of ferrets. I am sure the Minister will be able to enlighten us when he comes to reply. The other issue that I particularly wanted to raise—I have raised it a number of times in my interventions—is that this legislation has been taken in part from the old, comprehensive legislation, but there are no provisions in the Bill about penalties.”
“My hon. Friend is right to raise the procedural issues of the private Member’s Bill process being a threat to a Bill getting all the way through. Does he agree that because many Bills have already got through Second Reading in this Session, there is going to be a pile up in Committee which will make it difficult to get this Bill through Committee in time to get it back for the Fridays that give priority to Report and remaining stages? That is also a concern, is it not?”
“Does my hon. Friend agree that cracking down, with proper enforcement, and having tough penalties that are enforced is a way of not only tackling this vile trade, but getting the additional benefit of taking some serious criminals off our streets?”
“Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the Bill is to be a success, it is important that there are enforcement and punishment measures? Will he press the Minister, as I did, to be clear in his response about what those are and how they will back up the measures in the Bill to ensure that we put a stop to these evil trades?”
“I hesitate to say “ferrets” again, but the Minister may recall that I asked him whether there was an issue of abuse with ferrets, of the same kind that we see with dogs and cats. This might be an opportune moment for him to tell the House about that.”
“It is my understanding that the necessary changes in reporting will not come into effect until October, a few months after the rest of the regime, so the Minister has to delay reporting to 2025 anyway, does he not? The law is not going to change until October anyway.”
“I hope he will be able to reassure us about the practical implications of implementing them in the way and at the speed that he has set out—starting from April, in the absence of the statutory guidance—and that he has satisfied himself fully that it will go smoothly.”
“Under the current regime, have any contracts been delayed or, indeed, not placed because they have become unaffordable in the 18 months or so since the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) crashed the economy and sent inflation through the roof? I wonder whether the situation changed as a result of our suddenly getting a lot of inflation and the Minister was therefore encountering problems under the current regime, or whether it just led him intellectually to think, “In these circumstances, perhaps we ought to have such arrangements.” I would be interested to hear what prompted the change. Having made all those points, I do not intend to divide the Committee. The underlying aims of the regulations are good, but I hope the Minister understands that there are some questions about them.”
“I noticed that in the House last week, when he set out his integrated procurement model in respect of the other procurement that the Department does. He is introducing that in April, too. Is he sure that his Department and the officials who have to implement all this will be capable of making these big changes to single source procurement and introducing his new integrated procurement model at the same time? The last thing that I want to raise with the Minister is the idea of sharing inflation risk, which has not been in the regulations previously. It is interesting that he has acknowledged that it can sometimes make commercial sense for the MOD to share inflation risk, whereas in the past it has generally sought to pass it all on to its suppliers and contractors.”
“There are more references to it arbitrating disputes as a consequence of these regulations, and obviously it has to continue doing the job it has been doing. Does the Minister anticipate any extra pressure on the SSRO as a result of the changes in these regulations? Will it be able to cope with the extra burdens that they will put on it? Is it to have extra resource, either monetary or in the form of personnel, to enable it to do so? I wonder why, having taken two years to consult—that is a positive interpretation; it is two years since publication of the consultation document, but perhaps four years since some of the consultation started—the Minister is rushing to implement the regulations by 1 April, without the statutory guidance having appeared. He is a man in a rush.”
“Does he anticipate any confusion, which might cause its own problems, when the new regime is introduced but people do not have statutory guidance and do not really know how to operate it, and are concerned about which pricing arrangement to use? Does he expect a blockage to start with? Changes to the reporting obligations will not even be legislated for until October, so will sufficient reporting mechanisms be available to parliamentarians and the general public, as taxpayers whose money is being used in these contracts, to assure themselves of the value for money of any contracts that might be signed between April and October? Having read all this, I think the SSRO will have a bigger job to do than it does currently.”
“I would like to hear a little more about what the Minister expects the impact of these changes will be. The SSRO has a statutory obligation to review these things over time. It has done so since it was established, and there have been previous changes to the regulations as a consequence of those reviews. I think this is the third review, and I know that the implementation is to be reviewed through to 2027, so whoever might form the next Government will have to deal with the consequences and the outcome of all this. However, I would say that the changes to the regulations that the Minister has put forward are the most extensive since they were introduced. Does he agree with that? Does the Minister think that everything will be ready by 1 April?”
“However, as the Minister said in his opening remarks, we are talking about £90 billion, 575 contracts and 50% of the Department’s spend, so it is important from a value for money point of view that the Department and the Minister get this right. Can he say any more about how much of the Department’s spend and how many contracts he now expects to come under these regulations, given that they are being made more flexible? The impact assessment suggests that the number will be very small—it kind of assumes that there will be only 10 extra—but is that realistic, given that the aims of the regulations are to increase flexibility and make things easier to use, to get rid of some exemptions and to increase compartmentalisation in a way that ought to bring more potential contracts under these regulations?”