Dame Angela Eagle
MP for Wallasey · Labour · United Kingdom
“The Kremlin increasingly relies on proxy organisations to pursue its objectives, seeking to undermine our security while maintaining a degree of plausible deniability. The so-called GRU Volunteer Corps is a clear example of that approach. It is not an independent force or a loose collection of volunteers.”
“This Government have introduced support for the Jewish communities who have been threatened and directly targeted by IRGC proxies. Just a couple of days ago, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced an extra £250 million for policing to ensure that we can support and protect our Jewish communities.”
“I will move on to the Islamic Movement of Companions of the Right. The IMCR has publicly claimed seven attacks at UK locations linked to Jewish and Israeli communities and to Persian-language media, including the antisemitic arson attack on four Hatzola ambulances in Golders Green on 23 March.”
“We expect platforms to act responsibly and not to provide space for state threat-linked activity, propaganda or recruitment. We will be keeping a close eye on that, as well as liaising with social media companies to tell them about how this law impacts them.”
“The IRGC Quds Force and the IRGC Intelligence Organisation, together with the Ministry of Intelligence and Security, form the Iranian intelligence apparatus. As a key component of the Iranian state’s security apparatus, the IRGC is answerable directly to Iran’s Supreme Leader.”
“It provides a targeted and proportionate means of disrupting those involved in foreign power threat activity based on the recommendations of Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of state threat legislation. To answer the hon.”
The complete record
Every one of 5,924 lines we hold for Dame Angela Eagle, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 8 of 119.
“We will continue to support engagement between Ofwat and the consortium, with a view to supporting a market-led solution for Thames Water’s difficulties, while ensuring that customers and the environment are protected. Many hon. Members in this debate have talked about the potential for a special administration regime. Should Thames Water become insolvent, we would not hesitate to apply to the court to place the company into a special administration regime, but as the hon. Member for Epping Forest pointed out, that is not a cost-free option. This would ensure that there is no increased disruption to customers’ water or waste-water services.”
“I was talking about the specific point that my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) made about ringfencing for investment, not about some of the costs of the current impasse at Thames Water. To go back to that, the Government will always act in the interests of customers and the environment, and ensure that Thames Water acts in those best interests too. We are working closely with Ofwat, which is currently in conversation with the London & Valley Water consortium, which is the group of creditors that was referred to. Ofwat will only agree to a plan that will ensure the best possible outcomes for customers and the environment.”
“No, I must make this point, which is quite important in the context of the debate. There is a high bar for the use of special administration regimes. The law states that special administration can be initiated only if the company becomes insolvent—while Thames Water is living fairly hand to mouth, it is not currently insolvent—or is in such a serious breach of its principle statutory duties or an enforcement order that it is inappropriate for the company to retain its licence. Those are the only two things than can lead to the application of a special administration regime.”
“There is a process going on between the creditors and the company that must be allowed to finish one way or another. I have just said that, should Thames Water become insolvent, we will not hesitate to apply to the court to place the company into a special administration regime. Hon. Members on both sides of this Chamber should be reassured by that. We will continue to work with Ofwat to help support a market-led solution to the company’s issues of financial resilience and operational delivery.”
“There is an ongoing process that I cannot and will not comment on from the sidelines. What I have said is that the Government will ensure that any resolution comes in the interests of the environment and customers, and that is the criteria that the Government will apply, but I will not commentate on rumours from outside of the process in this place. It is important that we allow the process to continue to its conclusion, whatever that may be. I hope that Members are reassured that the Government will be ready to act and use special administration if we have to, should we get to that circumstance—but we are not in that circumstance yet. I conclude by reiterating that this Government will always act in the national interest. We are clear that Thames Water must always act in the best interests of customers and the environment.”
“As I may not get another chance, may I take this opportunity to wish you, and all Members and House staff, a happy Christmas, Mr Speaker? We are committed to promoting fairness across the food supply chain, including achieving a fair price for sugar beet that benefits both growers and processors. There is a well-established independent process in place to agree the sugar beet price. We continue to keep it and the regulatory framework under review.”
“I thank my hon. Friend for her question, which is an acute one. I agree that growers too often bear disproportionate risk, which is why the Government have launched a public consultation on fairness and transparency in the combinable crops supply chain. The consultation is open for eight weeks, and I encourage all interested parties to engage and share their views.”
“While the Conservatives failed to spend £300 million of the farming budget, we are backing farmers with the largest nature-friendly budget in history, and 50,000 farm businesses and half of all farmed land are now managed under our schemes. We have today published our initial response to Baroness Batters’ recommendations on farm profitability, and we are developing our 25-year farming road map.”
“I pay tribute to the farmers in my hon. Friend’s constituency in the awful situation they face. We are closely monitoring the outbreak and have taken action to eradicate disease by putting in place control zones, tracing movements and issuing a proactive housing order. I am more than happy to talk to him about what we can do to ensure that we have the appropriate level of veterinary response. Avian flu is now endemic in the wild bird population, and we will have to get increasingly sophisticated at dealing with it.”
“This is a matter for the University of Cambridge, but having visited the veterinary school at Harper Adams University, I am all too aware—as clearly the hon. Gentleman is—of the importance of having enough well-qualified vets in our country. We need to ensure that the supply and the opportunities to train are there, but this particular decision is one for the University of Cambridge. I am happy to talk to the university, but I am unsighted on the reasons. If the hon. Member wants to talk to me afterwards, I would be more than happy to hear what he has to say.”
“Modelling has shown that food prices are driven by the interaction of domestic and international considerations, including farm gate prices, import prices and exchange rates. Modelling from industry and Government expects food price inflation to fall gradually over the next two years.”
“I do not think that the hon. Member’s characterisation of the Prime Minister’s remarks to the Liaison Committee is entirely accurate, but I am working on introducing and making available in the first half of next year a sustainable farming incentive scheme that will hopefully be more available to smaller farmers, easier to engage with, and much simpler than the mess delivered by the Government of which he was a part. Let us face it: 25% of the money in the SFI scheme goes to the top 4% of farmers. I want to see a different distribution.”
“I am puzzled by the hon. Lady’s view that the issues she talks about are somehow having a bad effect on food prices, since yesterday’s figures demonstrate that there has been a 0.7% decline in food price inflation, and estimates assume that inflation will gradually come down over the next two years.”
“I am more than happy to look at how Italy does things, but that can be a bit of a double-edged sword. I sympathise and empathise with coeliacs, who have to deal with much higher prices. Some of that is to do with production and the need to ensure that there is no cross-contamination of foods. It may well be that it is more expensive to produce food that is safe for coeliacs. I absolutely accept my hon. Friend’s point, and I am happy to talk to her about it.”
“This is a highly sensitive issue. The reasons for someone contemplating taking their own life are often very complex. My heart goes out to every family who is devastated by such events. I understand the pressures that farmers are under, but I have to say that the right hon. Lady’s way of making her point is very distasteful indeed.”
“Dairy farmers are facing a difficult period of market adjustment. The new fair dealing regulations ensure fairness and greater transparency, creating a more resilient dairy supply chain that supports farmers and strengthens national food security.”
“I understand and empathise with the experience of the hon. Lady’s constituent. A global glut of milk is driving prices down; prices had gone up because there was an undersupply, so there are market corrections going on. The Fair Dealing Obligations (Milk) Regulations 2024 now apply to all dairy supply contracts. If her constituent feels that he is being unfairly dealt with, he can contact the agricultural supply chain adjudicator, who was appointed to carry out enforcement of the fair dealing obligation regulations. He can now do so because those regulations have been in place since July of this year.”
“My hon. Friend raises the important point that a third of all farmland in England is managed by tenant farmers, so a fair and sustainable tenant farming sector relies on positive landlord, tenant and adviser relationships. To help deliver that, we have appointed Alan Laidlaw as England’s first commissioner for the tenant farming sector. We will continue to look particularly at how tenant farming agreements are working, to see whether there is any need for reform in the future.”
“We have a close relationship with the Home Office, and I have old contacts there too. I promise that we keep a close eye on these things and look at what we can do about emerging shortages. Given that we want to reduce the number of people who come into this country and that we want to create job opportunities for people here, it is important that the sector looks at how it can train people locally to do those jobs.”
“The global glut of milk has led to instability in price, which is difficult as many of our food prices are reliant on global markets. We have put in place the Fair Dealing Obligations (Milk) Regulations 2024, and we will be keeping a close eye on the sector to see what else we can do to ensure that we continue to support it.”
“That is absolutely true. Stepping forward with confidence into the future using new agritech techniques, diversifying farm income and seeing what we can do in partnership with the industry, as Baroness Batters’ report says this morning, is the way forward; talking down the industry and covering it in doom and gloom is not.”
“We have to get the science right on vaccination trials. The turkey trial is being carried out because this is one of our most valuable stocks, so we cannot rush it. I would not want to get our turkey industry into a situation where the vaccination trial was rushed and we were not sure of the response, because if there is not international recognition of vaccinations, it destroys the trade.”
“We have already brought forward some sectoral regulations to improve fairness, but there is a built-in difficulty when there are small suppliers and very large buyers. The fairness regulations that the hon. Gentleman talks about have been put in place to try to redress that difficulty.”
“The amendments do not change the core policy of pEPR; rather, they enhance its delivery and ensure that the system is fair, transparent and effective. They have been developed through extensive consultation and co-design sessions with stakeholders, which brought together producers, local authorities and others from across the packaging value chain to shape the future of the scheme. The amendments before us today strengthen our commitment to a circular economy, support innovation, reward sustainability and ensure that our packaging system works for the environment, the industry and the public.”
“That provides greater clarity for reporting and fee calculation. We are clarifying obligations across producer classes, including how responsibilities transfer when businesses merge or change ownership. We are also strengthening enforcement powers to tackle non-compliant “free riders”, which are businesses that meet the producer threshold but fail to register or report data. Such entities gain an unfair advantage over compliant competitors and undermine the integrity of the system. The scheme administrator, PackUK, will now have powers to charge free riders and recover costs. Updating regulator fees to reflect increased activity and inflationary pressures, as well as the introduction of new services such as recyclability assessment methodology and digital infrastructure, also form part of the change.”
“Despite sorting techniques, it is currently difficult for local authorities to keep plastic that is intended for food contact separate from other types of plastics, and the result is that food-grade plastics often get downcycled, so we lose that valuable material. Closed-loop recycling systems help to keep food-grade plastics separate and decrease our reliance on virgin plastics. The approach we have chosen supports moving the UK towards a circular economy. Thirdly, we are making a series of technical amendments to improve the scheme’s operability and ensure clarity for producers. Those include refining the definition of fibre-based composite materials by introducing a threshold—where plastic layers constitute no more than 5% of the packaging by mass, the item will be treated as paper and card.”
“Sovereign functions related to sign-off and ownership of data, models and fee-setting cannot be delegated to the producer responsibility organisation, and will be retained by PackUK. Secondly, we are introducing a targeted expansion of the scheme’s offsetting provisions. Large producers that operate closed-loop recycling systems for food-grade plastics—a system whereby they collect their own food-grade plastic waste directly from consumers and send it for reprocessing into new food-grade recyclate—will now be able to deduct these closed-loop package tonnages from their disposal cost obligations. Eligible producers will be able to resubmit data for the 2024 reporting year and receive revised invoices for the 2025 assessment year. We are doing this because we want to increase the recycled content in food-grade plastics.”
“I will highlight three key areas of reform in the amendments. First, we are enabling the appointment of a producer responsibility organisation from 2026, which is a significant development. The producer responsibility organisation will be an independent not-for-profit body established with the support of producers to take on core responsibilities for the operation of the pEPR scheme. This responds to a critical request from industry and aligns with successful models seen in countries with mature extended producer responsibility systems, ensuring that producers are not only accountable but actively involved in shaping the system. The PRO will operate under conditions agreed by the four Governments, and it will work in close partnership with the scheme administrator, PackUK.”
“The Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging and Packaging Waste) Regulations 2024 established a new framework for managing household packaging waste. They shifted the financial burden of disposal from taxpayers and local authorities to the businesses that supply the packaging. As a direct result, producers are now obligated to cover the cost of managing the packaging waste they have produced, and to ensure that a proportion of the packaging they supply is recycled, with evidence provided to the regulator. The amendments before us today are designed to improve the fairness, clarity and operational efficiency of the scheme. They respond directly to feedback from producers, local authorities and other stakeholders, and they reflect our commitment to international best practice.”
“I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging and Packaging Waste) (Amendment) Regulations 2025. It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. These draft regulations were laid before the House on 3 November, and they introduce amendments to extended producer responsibility for packaging—referred to as pEPR—in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. The amendments mark a significant milestone in our journey towards a more circular, resource-resilient economy in which producers take greater responsibility for the packaging they place on the market, and in which waste is designed out from the beginning.”
“There is also Government support for energy costs in the industry, which will hopefully deal with some of the additional costs that traditional industries are having to shoulder. I hope my hon. Friend accepts that we will continue to keep all of this under review. To conclude, the amendments made by these draft regulations are necessary to maintain the circular economy for packaging in the UK, to ensure that the key industry request that producers are involved in running the scheme is taken forward, and ultimately to ensure that materials and products are kept in use longer. I trust that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee understand and accept the need for these draft regulations, and accept that the changes will benefit the scheme.”
“We recognise the strength of feeling on the need for a system that can be effectively monitored and enforced, given the impact of pEPR on packaging that remains in scope of fees. Through our workshops, we are looking at what we can do to refine the system further to deal with the issues of double charging, as the shadow Minister put it. He asked what would happen if the PRO collapsed. PackUK can take control in the event of a catastrophe while it seeks to establish a successor, so that there does not have to be any other system. We recognise the issues with glass, raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli, and the issues with measuring by weight, on which we are in touch with producers.”
“These draft regulations are part of that iteration, because they introduce, for example, a change on the closed loop for food-grade plastics, and they shift to a producer-run organisation so that we can integrate how packaging is produced and try to drive up recycling rates. These measures will be responsible for returning over £1 billion to local authorities through fees and structures that enable them to recycle waste collected at people’s doors. The hon. Member for Epping Forest asked whether Ministers have met industry groups affected by dual use, and I hope to reassure him that the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh), has done so.”
“I am happy to address some of the points that have been raised. I welcome that the official Opposition are broadly supportive of this system, and I will come to their questions in a minute. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton, sounded like she was in favour on principle but not quite in favour of this particular system. That is an interesting approach, but ripping up the whole thing and starting again would not help our recycling rates. I prefer to think that the best way forward is to keep refining what is happening, to see how it works and to see if there are obvious things that we need to change.”
“We are trying to take the scheme forward in a positive, iterative way. The consultation is not kicking the can down the road; it is recycling the can to see what we can do to ensure that the system is changed and iterated to fit more effectively, to drive up recycling rates in our economy and to move towards a circular economy. I hope the hon. Member feels reassured by that response.”
“I know that the responsible Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry East, has met the industry, and that workshops have been held over recent weeks to urgently and carefully identify options that address the issues that the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton raises. We all need to find positive ways forward to address those issues. I hope she is reassured that my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry East is on to that one and already taking action. I hope that, with those explanations, this measure has the support of the Committee. Question put and agreed to .”
“We need only speak to a farmer whose fields were underwater last winter and then parched and drought-ridden this summer. They would say that that is not a theoretical risk, but a threat to food production today. That is a threat we can manage because we need to take climate change seriously and do something about it, as we do with more conventional threats.”
“That is why the food strategy will focus on strengthening local food systems. I am working closely with the Department for Work and Pensions to end mass dependence on food parcels, which is a moral scar on our society. I raise that point because food security is also about the ability of every citizen to access the nutrition they need. The new crisis and resilience fund will enable local authorities to provide preventive support for communities and assistance to individuals facing a financial shock, improving citizens’ financial resilience and reducing the need for future crisis support. We also face challenges to the resilience of domestic food production systems from soil degradation, disease and climate change. Those are critical long-term risks, but we should be clear that the impacts are here today.”
“Those figures have been more or less stable over 20 years. Recent geopolitical challenges have highlighted increasing risks to food security, but have also demonstrated the resilience of our food system. As we develop implementation plans for the food strategy, we are applying lessons learned from covid-19 and the Russian invasion of Ukraine about how to prepare for, respond to and recover from shocks. For example, one of the lessons from covid-19 was the key role that local communities and food systems played in maintaining access to food, particularly for the most vulnerable. I know from my experience during that strange time that working with the local authority and local kitchens was a far better way of ensuring that those who had to shield had access to useable, nutritious food.”
“That is why we will publish an annual food security digest report, in addition to the UK food security report, which is published every three years. The most recent was published last December. Those reports highlight how diverse international trade routes and resilient domestic production systems ensure that any disruption from risks, such as adverse weather or disease, does not affect the UK’s overall security of supply. Figures have been bandied around by different people about the percentage of our food we grow ourselves. UK agriculture currently provides 65% of the food we eat—77% of what we can actually grow here. We may not be brilliant at growing bananas, even though people love to eat them. The figure rises from 65% to 77% if we take account of what we can grow in our climate.”
“I chair F4, which brings together the National Farmers’ Union, the Food and Drink Federation, the British Retail Consortium and UKHospitality. That group represents the food system from farm to fork, and ensures that we are prepared for disruption to food supply chains and that we can respond quickly to threats as they emerge. We have heard about some of the threats from right hon. and hon. Members today, ranging from cyber-security threats to threats from Ukraine. Nobody has mentioned pests or diseases, but that is another potential threat that farmers know only too well. We have sadly experienced that in this country while I have been a Member of Parliament. Robust analysis and transparency are critical.”
“If they were going to argue that before covid-19 and the war in Ukraine, I do not see how they could possibly argue it after living through those occurrences and seeing the effects and implications that those unanticipated events had on our ability to be resilient in future unforeseen circumstances. Being open-minded to learn the lessons, and doing our best to anticipate what the challenges of the future might be, is an important part of how we develop a more resilient stance than we would have if our post-war complacency—if I could put it that way—had carried on without what has happened in the last few years. Anticipating the challenges of the future requires a close working relationship with the food sector.”
“It is a great pleasure to respond to this debate with you in the Chair, Dr Murrison—I hope you are warmer than I am, having sat in what is quite a cold room for the entire debate. It has been a good debate, so I would like to congratulate the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) on her success in securing it. We have had a good and serious debate across all parties about a serious, if somewhat complex and multifaceted, issue. Food security is about land use, but it is also wider than that, so I will begin my response by explaining how the Government are approaching this issue in the round. I do not think anyone would argue that food security is not an important part of our national security.”
“The new energy infrastructure and new homes are not a risk to food security. Today, ground-mounted solar covers 13,000 hectares of land, which is 0.1% of England and 0.15% of English agricultural land. Half the agricultural land generating solar power is still producing food because it is dual-use—there are sheep grazing, and so on, on it. By 2035, the plan is for the percentage to rise to 0.4% of England as we increase our solar power generation capacity from 18 GW to 75 GW. To put that into perspective, golf courses take up 0.7% of UK land and grouse moors take up 4%. At the moment, solar is at 0.1%, with plans to go up to 0.4%. People may not like solar panels appearing in and around the areas they live in, but they are not a threat to food security.”
“The good news is that actions taken today to manage these immediate risks can also reduce the risk from climate change. There is a £7 billion farming budget focused on improving the resilience of our food systems. That maintains the Government’s commitment to farming, food security and nature’s recovery. It includes £5.9 billion for environmental farming schemes, £816 million for tree planting and £385 million for peatland restoration, all of which is vital for sustainability. The farming budget will pay for land management actions that reduce flood and drought risk for arable systems and manage heat risk for livestock. The Government will also provide £15 million in funding to stop millions of tonnes of good, fresh farm food going to waste by redirecting that surplus into the hands of those who need it.”
“Some of what we have to do is ensure resilience to climate change, which will make us more resilient in the way in which we produce food. Environmental changes therefore go hand in hand with protecting food production. If we do not make our landscapes more resilient and more sustainable environmentally, it is likely that the productivity of our land will decline and it will be harder as the climate changes for us to guarantee reasonable food production. Some of those things bolster each other and should not be set against one another, as the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills said in her opening remarks. They can produce a more effective and more resilient result if we do them effectively and properly. We already manage the resilience of domestic production through updated environmental land management schemes.”
“I was coming to that. I am happy to get across my view of what this should be. The food strategy that we published in July makes clear that we will act to ensure that our food system can thrive and grow sustainably and continue to provide a resilient and secure supply of healthy, safe and affordable food. It sets out that that should include investment, innovation and productivity, and a fairer, more transparent supply chain, which is why we are dealing with the supply chain adjudicators and introducing regulation on how to ensure fairness. Dairy and pigs are already in a process, but other work is being done for other sectors to ensure that a fair price is paid for the food that is produced, which is important. Boosting the resilience of our food system will prepare it better for supply chain shocks and disruption.”
“The right hon. Lady is correct, but I am trying to get this into perspective in terms of overall land use. There have been many calls for the land use framework to be published. I hope I can reassure hon. and right hon. Member that we will publish it early next year. Having looked at some of it, I am totally fascinated by it; when we publish it, I think we will have very many interesting debates about what it demonstrates. As I see it, the food strategy goes together with the land use framework, which goes together with the farming road map—all of which are in parallel production even as we speak.”
“I do not think that the lack of appearance of Baroness Batters’s report has stopped anyone lobbying the Chancellor; lobbying is happening outside even as we speak.”
“That is quite a small land take to transform the lives of the many hundreds of thousands of people who are currently in need of homes. The Government are quite right to pursue a target of 1.5 million homes, and clearly one needs to build those homes on land. As I said, 26,000 hectares, which is 0.2% of English land, is the approximate amount of land that will be needed to ensure that we can house many people who currently do not have the prospect of having a home of their own.”