Oral Answers to Questions

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

3. What steps she is taking to help ensure that British Sugar agrees the terms of future sugar beet contracts with NFU Sugar.

[The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Dame Angela Eagle)]

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.

[Rachel Taylor]

A merry Christmas to you and all your staff, Mr Speaker.

In the summer I visited Boultbees farm in Baxterley in my constituency, where I met Andrew and his team. Like all farmers who grow sugar beet, they are obliged to sell it to British Sugar, as the sole processor of British sugar beet in the UK. Common market organisation regulation exists to ensure fair negotiations on price, but British Sugar has sought to circumvent it. What are the Government doing to strengthen protections for farmers like Andrew to ensure that they get a fair deal in the combinable crops sector?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

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.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

4. What assessment she has made of the adequacy of flood defences in Twickenham constituency.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

8. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of her policies on farming communities.

[The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Dame Angela Eagle)]

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.

[Matt Vickers]

I have met many farmers from my part of the world who have shared with me the horrific consequences of the family farm tax on food prices, on food security and on families who have farmed for generations. This morning’s farming profitability review identifies that that is the single biggest issue affecting farm viability. I believe that if the Minister heard at first hand from farmers in my part of the world, she might think again. Will she meet them?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I meet farmers all the time, and I intend to spend the early part of next year, and hopefully many years thereafter, continuing to do so.

[Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)]

Merry Christmas to you and your team, Mr Speaker.

Christmas is coming and the goose is getting fat—or it would be if we had not had such a terrible year for avian influenza. The poultry sector is worth £1.5 billion gross value added to our UK economy. As much as I welcome the investment going into Harlow for the national biosecurity centre, will the Minister tell us what action we are taking to make sure that we have more veterinary surgeons located in the area where the problems are being found?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

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.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)]

Merry Christmas to you and your team, Mr Speaker.

The Government must enact policies that benefit farming communities. They have a chance to do that now with another critical issue that impacts our farming, food security, animal welfare and biosecurity. A recommendation was made this month by the council of the School of the Biological Sciences to close the University of Cambridge’s vet school. I declare my strong personal and professional interest as a graduate of that school and as a fellow of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. We do not produce enough vets in the UK. We face threats to our food security and our biosecurity, both of which vets are pivotal to. The health and welfare of animals depends on vets, as indeed does public health. Will the Government act now to press the University of Cambridge to block this closure proposal and save Cambridge’s vet school, for the benefit of animals and people here in the UK and across the world?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

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.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

9. What assessment her Department has made of the potential impact of agricultural property relief and business property relief on food prices.

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

11. What assessment her Department has made of the potential impact of agricultural property relief and business property relief on food prices.

[The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Dame Angela Eagle)]

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.

[Nick Timothy]

Happy Christmas to you, Mr Speaker, and to all Members and staff of the House.

At the Liaison Committee this week, the Prime Minister admitted that some farmers will take their own lives because of the family farms tax, but he repeated the claim that three quarters of farms will not be affected. According to the National Farmers Union, the opposite is true: three quarters of commercial family farms will have to pay it. The big idea now is to drive up profitability, but as my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) said, the family farms tax is killing investment. Does the Minister think that Baroness Batters was wrong when she said in her report, on page 4, that the closure of the sustainable farming initiative and the family farms tax have left farmers

“particularly in the arable sector… questioning viability, let alone profitability”?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

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.

[Katie Lam]

Merry Christmas, Mr Speaker.

The cost of food in this country increased by 4.2% year on year last month, yet farming profitability is on the floor and has been hit repeatedly by this Government, whether that is in national insurance contribution increases, the family farm tax or energy taxes. Will the Government consider easing their terrible tax burden on farmers to solve both the cost of living crisis for food and the farming profitability crisis at the same time?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

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.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

Merry Christmas to you and your crew, Mr Speaker.

Food prices from farm to fork are particularly tough on coeliac sufferers. Their shops are 35% dearer, and a loaf of bread costs six times the standard price. Will my Front-Bench colleagues look into Italy’s allowance system, in order to replace our outmoded subscription model, which is bad value for the taxpayer?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

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.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

On Monday, the Prime Minister admitted that farmers are considering taking their own lives for fear of the family farm tax—a tax that he described as a “sensible reform”. The next day, I was given a letter for the Prime Minister from 90-year-old farmer and grandmother Mrs Denton. It contains one chilling question that I expect the farming Minister to be able to answer. Mrs Denton asks:

“My husband and I now need to know as soon as possible the date we need to die by to avoid the totally unfair inheritance tax that will be forcibly put on our offspring to have to sell or split up a food-producing farm—and do what?”

[Dame Angela Eagle]

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.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

10. What steps she is taking to support dairy farmers.

[The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Dame Angela Eagle)]

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.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

Happy Christmas to you and your staff, Mr Speaker, and to everyone here.

Despite the agricultural supply chain adjudicator having a remit over fair dealings for milk prices, it appears that contracts are essentially a one-way street, with milk processors dictating prices. A constituent of mine, a dairy farmer, has recently been notified of a 2p per litre cut, which equates to a loss of £11,000 and makes it unviable for him to continue. What steps is the Minister taking to urgently redress that imbalance? Farmers are scared to speak out because it will have an impact on their contract.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

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.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

Merry Christmas to you and your fantastic staff, Mr Speaker.

I note that the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) obviously has better things to do than turn up and speak for farmers. I want to speak up for dairy tenant farmers. Tenant farmers manage a third of all farmland in England. As well as running her dairy farm, Rachel at Low Springs farm in Baildon also runs Baildon farmers market and is the director of the Great Yorkshire show. Will the Minister set out how this Labour Government are implementing the recommendations of Baroness Rock’s review to help tenant dairy farmers such as Rachel?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

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.

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

Merry Christmas to you, Mr Speaker, and to your tip-top team.

Dumfries and Galloway is the land of milk and slurry. We lack not for grass and dairy cattle, but we do lack for people. We are heavily reliant on immigrants to milk the cattle, so the loss of occupation code 5111 from the immigration salary list is causing huge concern. Can my farmers count on the Secretary of State to speak to the Home Office and head off what appears to be a looming crisis?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

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.

[Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)]

I had the opportunity to meet a dairy farmer in my constituency, who explained just how financially challenging things have been. They have diversified, they have a farm shop and they do raw milk vending, but it is simply not enough for them to make a profit on other activities to subsidise their milk production. Will the Minister outline how dairy farmers, who are critical to a vibrant food and drink sector, will be supported in the long term?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

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.

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

12. What steps her Department is taking to help support farmers to adopt higher animal welfare standards.

--- Later in debate ---

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

Merry Christmas to you and your team, Mr Speaker.

Alongside many colleagues on the Government Benches who are passionate about farming, I will continue to argue for a rethink on inheritance tax, but I back this Government and their mission to improve the profitability of our farms. We are speeding up planning, tackling unfair supply chain practices, unlocking finance and boosting exports. Does the Minister agree that the findings of the Batters review mean that we can finally turn a page on dwindling farm incomes and unleash benefits for farmers, the rural economy and our nation’s food security?

[The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Dame Angela Eagle)]

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.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Zöe Franklin—not here.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

T4. From Fylde to Chorley, a very warm Lancastrian merry Christmas to you, Mr Speaker. I went out to meet some of the farmers who came down for the latest protest this week, and having listened to the answers from Front Benchers today, I wanted to clear up a little confusion. They are aware that those farmers do not keep coming down to thank them, are they not?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

Yes.

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

Merry Christmas, Mr Speaker.

A recent outbreak of avian flu near Wetheral in my constituency affected 43,000 birds and required the culling of the entire flock. Although I welcome the turkey vaccination trial, I am concerned that it will not conclude in time for the vaccine to be rolled out for the next avian flu season. Will the Minister set out what steps she is taking to remove the regulatory barriers that might prevent a roll-out in time for the next avian flu season?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

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.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

T6. Season’s greetings, Mr Speaker. In October, a Censuswide survey of 200 farms showed that 76% felt under financial pressure from supermarket buying practices, and seven in 10 thought that the buying relationship between supermarkets and farmers had worsened in the past two years. When will the Government publish the outcome of the Groceries Code Adjudicator consultation, which took place in the summer, and bring forward regulations to improve that relationship and protect farmers?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

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.

[Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Many constituents, including my own, were shocked to see that 24,000 homes and businesses in the south-east were without drinking water for two weeks. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that residents get the compensation that they deserve?

Animal Welfare Strategy

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

My wife, who is a radiographer, is on call on Christmas day, but luckily we are going to the in-laws, so hopefully that will cover it.

[The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Dame Angela Eagle)]

You won’t be in the kitchen, then?

[Mr Francois]

They’re not going to risk that!

Mr Speaker, we know you are an animal lover—the world knows that—but some may recall that our great friend, Sir David, was a passionate animal lover, too. One cause that was very close to his heart was pig farrowing crates. Another was banning the import of foreign hunting trophies, which is an awful trade. There was a private Member’s Bill in the last Session that sailed through the Commons but ran into trouble in the Lords. Can the Secretary of State confirm that the Government are committed to banning the import of hunting trophies? At the moment, they are not providing any private Member’s Bill Fridays for other reasons, so how will that ban be achieved?

Fishing Opportunities Agreement 2026

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Written Statements

[The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Dame Angela Eagle)]

The UK has reached agreement with the EU, Norway and other coastal states on catch opportunities for shared stocks for 2026. Across negotiations so far, the UK has secured agreement on over 80 total allowable catches—TACs—providing access to more than 520,000 tonnes of fishing opportunities for 2026, worth an estimated £830 million based on historic landing prices.

Additionally, the UK participated in multilateral consultations, reaching agreement on sustainable fishing opportunities and marine conservation management measures through the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission, ICCAT—the international commission for the conservation of Atlantic tunas—and the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organisation, and updating the United Nations General Assembly resolution on sustainable fisheries.

We have set annual catch limits that are informed by the best available scientific advice, predominantly that provided by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea—ICES. The scientific advice for 2026 creates a challenging sustainability picture, with many stocks receiving declining advice—compared with 2025—or advice for zero catches, particularly in demersal mixed fisheries. We have therefore agreed new technical, remedial and management measures through these negotiations to reduce fishing pressure and support long-term sustainability.

In these negotiations the UK Government worked closely with the Scottish Government, Welsh Government and Northern Ireland Executive to secure outcomes that deliver on our domestic and international obligations to improve the sustainable management of our fish stocks for the long-term in support of the whole of the UK fishing industry.

UK-EU bilateral negotiations

The UK has secured fishing opportunities of 150,000 tonnes, worth around £430 million based on historic landing prices, through agreement on over 70 TACs as well as agreement on arrangements for non-quota stocks. Compared with the same stocks in 2025, this is similar in volume and £20 million higher in value. The small increase is primarily due to higher catch limits for North sea nephrops and sole. Most catch limits are the same as in 2025 or have declined, largely driven by the scientific advice.

We have set TAC positions above ICES headline advice for 18 stocks as part of our final negotiated position this year. This includes bycatch-only TACs for severely depleted stocks in mixed fisheries. The Government will publish early in 2026 a full assessment of the number of TACs set consistent with ICES advice across all annual negotiations.

In recognition of the depleted status of stocks this year, we have reduced the tonnage for some bycatch TACs and agreed new technical measures to reduce bycatch of vulnerable cod, haddock, whiting, place and sole stocks in the Celtic sea, Irish sea and channel.

The UK and EU have agreed to balance increases for the pollack and seabass fisheries with a cautious approach that aims to support long-term sustainability. For example, we have agreed to introduce a new mandatory bag limit for the pollack recreational fishery. This complements the voluntary measures already in place and aims to further reduce mortality of this stock.

The UK and EU also made commitments to work together through the Specialised Committee on Fisheries in 2026 to address management challenges and promote long-term sustainability of shared stocks. This includes continuing to review management approaches for skates and rays, monitoring behaviour change in the seabass fishery, and exploring options for a minimum conservation reference size for spurdog. The UK and EU also agreed to continue to work together through the SCF to support ICES in improving the science base for a number of stocks, including Rockall cod—to improve the quality of the biomass assessment in area 6b—mixing horse mackerel stocks in area 7e, and sole in area 7hjk.

For non-quota stocks, the UK and the EU agreed a roll-over of access arrangements for 2026 to ensure continued access to fish NQS in EU waters, worth around £25 million in 2024.

The parties also agreed a roll-over of access arrangements for spurdog in the North sea and albacore tuna.

UK-EU-Norway trilateral negotiations

The UK has also reached agreement with Norway and the EU on catch limits for 2026 for six jointly managed North sea stocks, giving the UK fishing fleet access to opportunities worth over £380 million, based on historic landing prices.

TACs for haddock, saithe, whiting and plaice have been set in line with, or below, the headline advice from ICES.

For northern shelf cod, the parties agreed that a multi-year approach was required to reduce fishing pressure, increase biomass and recover the sub-stocks to MSY levels as soon as possible. For 2026 the UK, along with the EU and Norway, agreed to introduce additional seasonal closures and update real time closure regimes, as well as introduce new restrictions on targeting of cod in the southern North sea. This enables a 2026 TAC which is projected by ICES to lead to biomass increases and which secures fishing opportunities that recognise the social and economic importance of cod in the mixed fishery. In the longer-term, the UK has committed to further work through the trilateral forum, much of which is to be led by the northern shelf cod management working group which the UK currently chairs.

For North sea herring, after many years of discussions on changing the management model for the stock, the UK, EU and Norway have agreed a new approach which includes the implementation of a long-term management strategy. This issue has been a UK priority for many years, and this new management regime, in place from January 2026, is expected to deliver sustainability improvements for the stock.

The parties renewed their commitment to deliver LTMSs for their other shared stocks. The parties also agreed to discussions in 2026 on moving the management of northern shelf anglerfish—monkfish—and the northern hake stock to a joint basis, and they further committed to continuing to progress their joint work on the monitoring, control and surveillance of their shared stocks.

Coastal states negotiations

The UK has reached agreement with other coastal states on fishing opportunities for blue whiting and Norwegian spring-spawning—Atlanto-Scandian—herring in the north-east Atlantic in 2026. These opportunities are worth an estimated £20 million to the UK fleet, based on 2024 landing prices. TACs for these two stocks have been agreed in line with ICES advice. Discussions on the 2026 TAC for mackerel, and associated management measures, are ongoing among coastal states.

North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission

The UK worked with other parties to secure new monitoring, control and surveillance measures. This included taking steps to bring the NEAFC scheme into alignment with guidelines published by the food and agriculture organisation of the United Nations on at-sea transhipment.

ICCAT—the international commission for the conservation of Atlantic tunas

The UK secured an increase from 63 tonnes to 230.65 tonnes of bluefin tuna per year for 2026 to 2028. The quota will enable the further development of commercial and recreational bluefin tuna fisheries in the UK and Crown dependencies from 2026 to 2028. DEFRA will share plans regarding these fisheries with interested parties soon.

The UK also secured a range of objectives to promote more sustainable fishing of Atlantic tunas, support economic growth and protect the environment. We secured adoption of a UK proposal to prohibit retention of white shark and basking shark, affording greater protection to these iconic species. ICCAT also adopted strengthened port state measures, based on a UK proposal, to help in the fight against illegal fishing. Although a UK proposal to help reduce bycatch of endangered seabirds was not adopted, we will continue to fight for this at ICCAT in 2026-27.

Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organisation

The UK agreed a TAC for NAFO division 3M cod, in line with scientific advice. This provides the UK with a quota of 1431.6 tonnes for 2026, a 22% increase over last year. The Canadian-set TAC for NAFO 3L cod also increased for 2025-26, providing the UK with a quota of 40.4 tonnes. Together this provides the UK with around £5 million-worth of fishing opportunities, based on historic landing prices.

UN General Assembly resolution on sustainable fisheries

The UK contributed to updating and strengthening the content of the UN General Assembly resolution on sustainable fisheries. Seven of the UK’s proposals were progressed this year, consistent with our overarching aim of improving global fisheries governance and sustainability. These included securing references to the latest findings from the food and agriculture organisation regarding the status of global fish stocks, and new text to help reduce or eliminate seabird bycatch, and improve the management of fisheries catching sharks.

UK-Norway and UK-Faroe Islands bilateral negotiations

Bilateral negotiations between the UK and Norway and the UK and the Faroe Islands for 2026 are ongoing. Our aim is to conclude those before the end of the year. These negotiations are to agree access, exchanges of fishing quota, and broader fisheries management measures between the parties.

[HCWS1151]

Draft Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging and Packaging Waste) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2025 General Committees

[The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Dame Angela Eagle)]

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.

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 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. 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. 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. 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.

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Angela Eagle]

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.

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. 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. 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.

[Dr Hudson]

As I mentioned, the Budget document talked about a consultation on this going into 2026. I raised with the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh), in the Westminster Hall debate that such consultation needs to be urgent, rather than kicking the can down the track. Can the Minister reassure us that she and her DEFRA colleagues will urgently review the system and act to mitigate any adverse consequences? A consultation is good on paper, but unless it is urgent, stakeholders on the frontline are going to suffer.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

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.

[Sarah Dyke]

The Liberal Democrats have urged the Government to consider exempting pubs from the EPR, and to review the scheme’s scope and timeline to stop further damage to the hospitality sector, which we all know is already struggling. Will she commit to monitoring that progress as the scheme is rolled out so that pubs and the hospitality sector are not hit further?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

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.

Land Use Change: Food Security

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Dame Angela Eagle)]

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. 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. 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. 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. 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 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. 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.

[Wendy Morton]

I am genuinely interested in what the Minister is saying about food and food systems, but how does she see the connection between that and our farmers? We do not want anybody to be reliant on a food parcel, but what is her Department doing to ensure that the food in a kitchen, in a parcel or on our shelves is produced by British farmers? That is at the heart of this debate: British food security.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

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. 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. 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.

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.

[Wendy Morton]

I must respectfully disagree with the right hon. Lady—

[Dame Angela Eagle]

Hon. Lady.

[Wendy Morton]

I beg your pardon—the hon. Lady. Maybe one day! It is one thing to see a few sheep grazing under a solar panel, but my point is about agricultural arable land that grows crops. I have yet to see a solar panel in an arable field because I do not think that is possible.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I was not trying to make out that arable crops could graze around solar panels—

[Wendy Morton]

The hon. Lady gets my point.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

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.

[Robbie Moore]

Cash flow challenges are hitting many of our farming businesses right now. Baroness Batters, of the other place, has produced a profitability review, which seems to be hidden in the depths of the Department at the moment. Will the Minister guarantee that the profitability review will be published this week, before the Budget, so that all our farmers, the stakeholders and us, as Members of Parliament, can scrutinise it and lobby the Chancellor to make the right decisions before the Budget next week?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

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.

[Robbie Moore]

But will it be published?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

Of course it will be published.

[Robbie Moore]

Before the Budget?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

Of course it will be published, and it will be published this year. I cannot think of any Government who produce large reports on matters of interest in the week before the Budget. The hon. Gentleman can expect to see it this year, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told the EFRA Committee in evidence, I think last week.

I could understand why the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills would be worried if solar farms were planned to take up more than 0.4% of land in England in the next period, up to 2035, but they are not. Also, the 1.5 million homes that this Government have said they will deliver in this Parliament are likely to take up approximately 26,000 hectares, which is 0.2% of English land. 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.

[Bradley Thomas]

I want to give the Minister an opportunity to answer a question that I have asked several Ministers in the main Chamber. My constituents and I do not dispute the need for more housing in the country, nor do we dispute that it needs to be located in areas where people want to live, but what would she say to my constituents living across Bromsgrove and the villages—an area that is 89% green belt and 79% rural—when I tell her that, as a result of choices made by this Government, our housing target has increased by 85% while the housing target in adjacent Birmingham has decreased by more than 30%? Every area has to take its fair share, but does she agree that that is a grossly unfair imbalance?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

In the small amount of time left to me before the end of the debate, it is hard for me to answer the hon. Gentleman. It is not up to me to take decisions about local planning issues of that kind. That is what local plans are for.

I thank the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills for securing the debate. I know that she wants to say a few words, so I will sit down.

Oral Answers to Questions

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Thursday 13th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

3. What her planned timeline is for moving away from the use of farrowing crates and cages in farming.

[The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Dame Angela Eagle)]

We remain firmly committed to maintaining and improving animal welfare, and will work closely with the farming sector to deliver high standards. The use of cages and other close confinement systems for farmed animals is an issue we are currently considering and, as was announced by the Prime Minister, we plan to publish the animal welfare strategy by the end of this year.

[Adrian Ramsay]

I thank the Minister for her answer. Animal Equality estimates that around 200,000 sows in the UK spend nearly a quarter of their adult life confined in farrowing crates, which are metal barred cages that severely restrict their movement—they cannot even turn around. Some 75% of vets are concerned and research suggests that two thirds of the public oppose their use. When it comes to the animal welfare strategy, will the Minister commit to phasing out the use of all farrowing crates and the equally cruel cages for birds, and what practical steps will be put in place to support farmers with the transition?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

It is important to remember that 50% of the national sow breeding herd live freely and are not kept in these kinds of cage systems at all, which I think shows the way forward. It is very important that we work with the industry to see how we can move away from the use of farrowing crates and create more flexible alternatives that are available to be introduced in a practical and pragmatic way.

[Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)]

So often, farmers are the best conservationists. Many want to do even more to support the environment and animal welfare, but profitability and sustainability are key. Will the Minister confirm whether the Department will consider financial support for farmers to move towards more sustainable and strong animal welfare standards?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

We are always ready to consider how we can bring about the policies that will be set out in the animal welfare strategy when we publish it. We are pragmatic about how we can shift from outdated systems and modernise, and we are proud that we have some of the highest standards of animal welfare in the world.

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

4. What steps she has taken to help tackle littering.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

7. Whether she has made an assessment of the potential impact of solar farms on food security.

[The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Dame Angela Eagle)]

Only 0.1% of land is used for solar, and half of the agricultural land used for generating solar power is still producing food. Solar farms are not a risk to food security. Instead, they play an important role in diversifying farm income and decarbonising our economy.

[James Wild]

I think the Minister’s answer was a bit tone-deaf. North West Norfolk’s farms and farmers play a vital role in our food security. My constituents are concerned about the Droves and High Grove solar farms, which will cover 7,000 acres. Why are the Government, and the Net Zero Secretary in particular, obsessed with putting solar farms on Norfolk’s agricultural land rather than on brownfield land and rooftops?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

A very small area of land is used by solar farms—as I said before, it is 0.1% of the UK’s total land area. The clean power commitment 2030 will take that up to 0.4%. Our land use framework, which will deal with ensuring that solar farms do not go on prime agricultural land, is due to be published in the early part of next year.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)]

Food security is national security, and we are in the middle of a food and farming emergency created by this Labour Government’s policies. From their heartless family farm tax to the closure of vital support schemes, they are damaging farming’s ability to thrive and harming rural mental health. That is only being made worse nationwide, including in my constituency of Epping Forest, by plans for excessive solar development that risk prime food-producing land being taken away. When will the Government stop this senseless assault on our green belt and countryside, and start putting solar in the right places, such as on brownfield sites and rooftops? When will they start to reverse these damaging policies so that our fantastic farming sector has a fighting chance of being preserved for future generations?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

It sounds as though the shadow Minister thinks that the entirety of agricultural land will be covered in solar. I have already said that it will be 0.4% by 2030, and it provides farmers with extra income. We have a national planning policy framework that prioritises using lower-quality land for such things. He says that he wants solar power on rooftops—well, we are doing that too.

[Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)]

9. What steps she is taking to improve biodiversity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

I, too, welcome the Secretary of State, and the Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), to their roles. I look forward to working with them both.

Research from the University of Cumbria shows that, by this time next year, the average hill farmer will earn barely half the national minimum wage, yet the Government’s family farm tax means an annual tax bill of £20,000 a year for the typical hill farm. Those farmers will have to stop farming and sell up. To whom? To wealthy landowners and big city corporations. Is this policy not deeply socially unjust, robbing from the poor and giving to the rich, while betraying the people who care for our landscape and provide food for us?

[The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Dame Angela Eagle)]

We will publish the farming road map and the Batters review, and then talk about a strategy for making farming more productive, profitable and sustainable for the next generation. Upland farmers will play an important part in that review, and we will see what we can do to support them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

T2. Under the previous Government, farms were encouraged to diversify to secure their incomes and support rural communities. In the light of this Government’s reforms to agricultural property relief and business property relief, many family farms that diversified now face what feels like double taxation—once during business life, and once on succession. Ahead of the Budget, will the Minister urgently press Treasury colleagues to reverse those reforms?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

Again, we understand the pressures that farmers are under. We want to work on creating a productive, profitable and sustainable farming sector, and we will do so.

[Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)]

T8. What support can the Minister offer the Dudley Canal and Tunnel Trust, which seeks to open up canal access to the hidden gem at Wren’s Nest, which is part of the UNESCO geopark? That would help boost sustainable tourism, give access to residents, and highlight the site’s international geological significance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)]

Given the Government’s focus on strengthening skills in the agritech food sector, will the Secretary of State join me in visiting Harper Adams University’s new Telford facility at the Quad to see how the industry and higher and further education facilities, including Telford College, are working together to develop and diversify the skills pipeline in the sector?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

We are fully supportive of collaboration between industry and higher and further education to strengthen skills in the agrifood sector. I will be visiting Harper Adams; that visit is already in the diary, and if my hon. Friend wants to join me, he is more than welcome.

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

T6. What enforcement action is the Environment Agency taking against Viridor, the operator of the Beddington energy recovery facility, due to 18 months of exceedances of daily limits of NOx? Can the Minister also confirm that the permit increase request for the ERF will finally be refused?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

T7. Why has capital investment in agriculture collapsed? It is the family farm tax, isn’t it?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

No, it is not the family farm tax. The right hon. Gentleman should be patient and wait to see our plan for the future of farming.

The Solicitor General was asked—

Fresh and Nutritious Food: Inequality of Access

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Wednesday 5th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Dame Angela Eagle)]

It is a great pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Mundell. I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Gordon McKee) on securing this debate, and I thank all those who have made relevant, if somewhat fast, contributions. It demonstrates how important these issues are, and how much more awareness has recently been raised about them.

We know that many households are struggling to afford food, particularly fresh and nutritious food, with some disproportionately affected, including low-income families and those with disabilities. We also know that our food environment is dominated by products high in saturated fat, sugar and salt, which are highly addictive, heavily promoted and readily available, as well as cheap, making it harder for people to make healthy choices.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South gave us a vivid example from his area of Castlemilk that shows how, even if people wish to make those choices, they cannot practically do it. The idea of having to make a six-mile round trip to buy a banana says it all, when other ways of getting to the nearest supermarket are so impossible for those on low incomes.

[David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

Of course, but I have very little time to answer some of these points.

[David Chadwick]

Apples and pears provide essential nutrients, such as vitamin C and folate, and they count as one of our five a day, as recognised by the NHS Eatwell guide. Does the Minister agree that any attempt to include fruit juice in the HFSS category risks sending the wrong messages to families at a time when fruit and vegetable consumption is already falling, especially among children and those on lower incomes, as she mentioned?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

Today’s debate is about those who do not have practical access to any such choice, because there simply is nowhere for them to go and buy it. The national child measurement programme’s annual report demonstrated the consequences of the inequality of diet. For reception and year 6 children, obesity prevalence was more than double in the most deprived areas, compared with the least. These trends have been allowed to increase over the last 14 years, and there is now a positive correlation between obesity and poverty, which we must break. That is why it is so important that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South has brought forward this small but perfectly formed debate on a really serious issue.

How can we bring to bear really creative solutions to these problems, such as the food deserts that my hon. Friend talked about? The Government have done some things. We have a food strategy that talks about how we can improve food price affordability and access to highly nutritious food. We are committed to making the healthy choice the easier choice, which is certainly not the case in Castlemilk in his area.

We know that the cost of a nutritious diet is currently too high, and we know, for example, that we can do some work on that through the Healthy Start scheme, which supports people to buy fresh or frozen fruit, vegetables, pulses, milk and infant formula, if they have children under four. Healthy Start makes a valuable difference to families’ ability to purchase healthy foods for their young children. The nursery milk scheme provides reimbursement to childcare providers for giving a daily portion of milk to children and babies.

We are taking action in schools, including by trying to improve the nutritional aspects of free school meals. We are reviewing the school food standards to ensure that schools provide healthy food and drink options and restrict foods high in saturated fat, salt or sugar, to reflect the most recent Government dietary recommendations. We have extended free school meals to all children from households on universal credit, lifting 100,000 children out of poverty and putting £500 back into families’ pockets ahead of the child poverty strategy later this year. Some 90,000 disadvantaged students in further education now receive a free meal on the basis of low income and an additional 1.3 million infants enjoy a free lunch-time meal. Our new free breakfast clubs will help around 180,000 children in the first 750 schools, around 80,000 of whom are in deprived areas. A free, nutritious meal every school day helps our children and young people to access healthy food and supports their education and chances to succeed in work and life. That is soon to be extended to 2,000 schools, with 500,000 more pupils being involved.

On the questions about food redistribution, we are looking at that in the circular economy strategy to see how we can make the best use of surplus food. On the point about KitKat’s marketing budget, you learn something every day—it is a bit worrying to contemplate that. There is new mandatory healthy food sales reporting for large food businesses. That will start to encourage the recalibration of food and its contents, which I hope will begin to make a difference.

We are restricting volume price promotions on unhealthy food—buy one, get one free promotions—which encourage less nutritious food to be even more available. We expect that to make a difference. We have given local authorities stronger powers to block fast food outlets near schools, and I want such powers to be used proactively. We are also consulting on a ban on the sale of high-caffeine energy drinks to children under 16, which tend to be bought by children who live in more deprived, low-income households and make it very difficult for them to concentrate. This is not just about policy generally but what we can do across the system to reduce food inequality and improve access to healthy, affordable food.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South talked about the really difficult choices that his constituents face. I am more than happy to meet him to talk about what might happen there. Many hon. Members have talked about the Alexandra Rose charity. There is an interesting thing going on across the river in Merseyside, in Liverpool, where a mobile greengrocer called the Queen of Greens takes food to places where there is no supermarket. It may be that in the interim, before he and his community in Castlemilk get the chance to have a new supermarket built, there are some creative solutions for taking nutritious choices to the community. That is why I agree so much with some of the points made about how local communities, community action and perhaps even co-ops might be able to make a difference in areas such as that. The more creative we can be in having faster solutions, the more we can ensure that the current generation get the nutritional support that they deserve, rather than having to wait perhaps years for a supermarket to be built.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South for raising this really important issue.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

There is no time.

I am sure that together we can come up with some really creative solutions to assist in ensuring that we have a better future for those now suffering from a lack of access to free and nutritious food, and that we can finally start to address the terrible link between poverty and obesity, which has become such a feature of our society in recent years.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Environmental Protection (Wet Wipes Containing Plastic) (England) Regulations 2025

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Monday 3rd November 2025 General Committees

That the Committee has considered the draft Environmental Protection (Wet Wipes Containing Plastic) (England) Regulations 2025.—(Imogen Walker.)

[The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Dame Angela Eagle)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. The regulations were laid before the House on 16 September. I welcome the chance today to set out the action that this Government and the devolved Governments are taking to ban the supply and sale of wet wipes containing plastic across the UK. I am clearly not my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice, the Minister who has had the most to do with taking this legislation through Parliament. She cannot be with us today, and I have stepped into her position to introduce the statutory instrument that she has done so much work to bring about.

The Government are committed to root and branch reform of the water system to secure better outcomes for customers, investors and the environment, and to restore trust and accountability. A key part of that is enabling pre-pipe drainage and wastewater solutions, including better management of our rainwater and preventing pollutants from entering the sewer network and our waterways. Banning wet wipes containing plastic is integral to that ambition.

Wet wipes containing plastic are a growing source of plastic pollution amd are often found in our natural environment, including in waterways and on beaches. They break down into smaller pieces when in the water environment, contributing to microplastic pollution, which may be harmful to human and animal health. Banning them will reduce plastic and microplastic pollution, as well as reduce the volume of microplastics entering wastewater treatment sites when wrongly flushed.

This action is part of a wider commitment to encourage more sustainable behaviours around the consumption of single-use plastic. Ultimately, we want to encourage a shift towards reusable and/or plastic-free alternatives. In a 2023 public consultation, 95% of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the proposed ban on wet wipes containing plastic. The ban is part of the Government’s all-round approach to moving towards a circular economy for plastics—a future where we keep our resources in use for longer, waste is reduced to accelerate the path to net zero, and we see investment in critical infrastructure and green jobs, which will help our economy to prosper and nature to thrive. We intend to publish the first ever circular economic strategy for England in the coming months.

The UK is leading the way by banning the supply and sale of wet wipes containing plastic, which is a huge step in the right direction. We encourage other nations to consider banning these products, but there may be legitimate reasons why some countries continue to allow the supply and sale of the products. We have been working closely across the UK to agree a joined-up approach to the proposed ban and a UK-wide Government response. We want to deliver a ban that is sensible and effective, while minimising the negative impacts it might have on business and individuals reliant on these products.

The statutory instrument provides for an 18-month transition period before coming into force. The ban will therefore come into force in spring 2027, which is intended to mitigate the economic impacts of the ban, including potential job losses, and to mitigate the risk of excess stocks of wet wipes containing plastic being sent to landfill or being incinerated. We acknowledge that, for some uses, plastic-free alternatives are neither suitable nor available. On that basis, we will provide a medical and a business-to-business exemption to the ban. Our policy on exemptions ensures that individuals and businesses with a genuine need for wet wipes containing plastic can access them until there is a viable alternative. We will periodically review the scope of the exemptions.

Trading standards or equivalent enforcement officers in local authorities will enforce the ban using a reactive intelligence-led model. The Government will soon publish guidance to make clear the scope and details of the regulations. That will assist businesses and regulators in understanding the changes brought in by this legislation to help ensure compliance.

I emphasise that a ban on the supply and sale of wet wipes containing plastic is necessary to reduce plastic and microplastic pollution, particularly in our waters. I commend this statutory instrument to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I rise as Chair of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. I am pleased to report that this statutory instrument passed our scrutiny. We checked the legal drafting and whether the instrument is intra vires and going through the proper legislative procedure. We deal with 1,200 or 1,500 instruments a year, but this one passed with flying colours.

Measures from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs do not always pass with flying colours. We produced a report last month showing DEFRA had produced 69 such regulations; 9% required further explanation, and three of them—4%—required us to request changes in drafting, which shows that this very obscure and unsung Committee does very important work to make sure that regulations such as these are properly elucidated.

I support the hon. Member for Putney and her injunction that people should stop flushing wet wipes down toilets. Unfortunately, this statutory instrument does not address that. I think the Minister could have taken the opportunity to impress upon the public that they must stop flushing wet wipes down into the sewage system. They cause incredible blockages, which cost millions of pounds to clear, put our water bills up, and pollute the environment. Even if there are no plastics in them, they will continue to cause that nuisance. We must not let it get into the consumer’s mind, “Oh, these are plastic-free, so I can flush them down the loo.” I put it to the Minister that that is a great danger.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

The hon. Gentleman has anticipated some of what I was going to say in my winding-up remarks—but he is right.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I am most grateful to the hon. Lady. They say that in Parliament you should never ask a question to which you do not know the answer, but I am going to ask one. I notice that the EU is also moving towards this kind of ban, although I do not know whether it is the same. In Wales, the Welsh Labour Government have already introduced a ban. Would we have been allowed to do this without the EU’s permission? Would it have been regarded as a restriction on the free movement of wet wipes if we had introduced it while we were still in the EU? I hope that moving forward with this measure, for which I commend this Government and the previous Government, in this country will encourage the rest of the EU to follow suit. I do not suppose that this falls under the definition of “reset” or “alignment” or anything complicated like that, but could the Minister explain whether we could have done this if we were still in the EU?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Angela Eagle]

We have had a small but perfectly formed debate on a measure that has gathered cross-party agreement, partly because of the power of the argument about the damage that microplastics do. I particularly compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Putney on her long-standing and very powerful advocacy in this area: she should be very proud of the effect that her campaigning has had.

The hon. Member for Richmond Park has sold the beauty of her constituency in a way that I have never quite managed. I look forward to a time when she can talk about the unalloyed pleasures of the nature and beauty of her constituency without having to get us all involved in contemplating 180 tonnes of fatberg caused by 5 million wet wipes, but I also observe that 11 million wet wipes, or possibly more, are used a year. That is two fatbergs a year, created by the kind of waste that we are talking about banning.

I acknowledge that, as the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex pointed out, banning wet wipes that contain plastic will not stop the formation of fatbergs in our sewer system, because any wet wipe can contribute to that, as indeed can pouring oil down the sewer system. We therefore have much more work to do, not least on labelling and the “Do not flush” approach to the wet wipes that will remain even after the ban is brought into force. I compliment the hon. Gentleman for pointing out to me some of the issues with the Department, which I joined not so long ago; I will take those back so that future statutory instruments can get through his Committee unscathed. I note the points that he made about those that have not quite reached the standard of technical excellence of this one.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether we would have been able to introduce this statutory instrument if we had been in the EU. My information is that we would. The EU is not actually banning wet wipes at the moment; it is doing plastic versus non-plastic labelling. Perhaps the EU is beginning to go down the path that we have pioneered.

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

In a minute.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

She always gets excited when I mention the European Union.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

Of course, and that is why I will give way to my hon. Friend. I think that the EU is perhaps beginning some tentative steps along the same pathway that, thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Putney, we are pioneering.

[Ms Creasy]

I know that the Minister, like me, will want to reassure the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex, who has previously expressed grave concern that somehow working with our European counterparts would not help us to abolish taxes on tampons, for example. Let me reassure him that the single-use plastics directive, which was made in 2019—after we voted to leave the European Union, admittedly, but before we left—would facilitate this work. Indeed, the Netherlands and Spain are already progressing their own bans. The European Union is—as it always was—simply a springboard to making decisions at a local level. We are ahead of the curve here in the United Kingdom, but working with the European Union would not prevent us from doing this work. I am sure that that will entirely reassure the hon. Member.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I am in awe of my hon. Friend’s detailed knowledge of EU directives that were passed after we left. I am sure that she remains in dynamic alignment with what is going on in Europe.

I want to spend a little time answering the questions of the hon. Member for Epping Forest. Enforcement will be proportionate. The 18-month transition period is pretty generous, as far as transition periods go. We are certainly hoping that with the signals that have been given and with the ban coming in, the industry will be able to adjust. We also encourage it to innovate so that we can get plastic out of the remaining wet wipes that, for the time being, the exemptions in the statutory instrument allow. It is a pragmatic statutory instrument, as the hon. Gentleman says.

The hon. Gentleman asked how enforcement would work. It will be on sellers and suppliers, not on individuals. There will certainly be no one knocking on doors and checking people’s pantries to see whether they have an old supply of wet wipes with plastic in. At least, that is not the Government’s intention; if anyone were on the receiving end of that treatment, it would certainly be an overreach not allowed under this statutory instrument. With all those qualifications, I hope that the Committee will agree to the draft regulations.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Environmental Protection (Wet Wipes Containing Plastic) (England) Regulations 2025.

Fishing and Coastal Growth Fund

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Thursday 23rd October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the fishing and coastal growth fund.

[The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Dame Angela Eagle)]

We are working closely with our fishing and seafood sectors to ensure that they are vibrant, profitable and sustainable, and that we have a healthy and productive marine environment. That is why, on 19 May, the Government announced the fishing and coastal growth fund, a £360 million investment that will support the next generation of fishers and breathe new life into our coastal communities. Through the fund, we have recognised the vital contribution that fishing and coastal communities make to our economy, local communities and national heritage.

Designing the fund with stakeholders is paramount to its success, and we want to work with industry and communities to get their views on how to maximise value and target investment for maximum local impact. That engagement is just beginning. We will consider investment in new tech and equipment to modernise the fleets; in training and skills to back the next generation; and in promoting and supporting the seafood sector, so that it can export across the world.

Since the fund was announced, a wide range of stakeholders have called on the Government to learn from previous fisheries funding schemes and to devolve the funding, instead of the funding being at UK-level. That is why, on 20 October, the Government, in a reaffirmation of our commitment to devolution, confirmed that the fishing and coastal growth fund would be devolved, and that devolved Governments would have full discretion over how to allocate funding. That approach enables each devolved Government to design and deliver support in response to the specific needs of their fishing and coastal communities. That will ensure that investment is targeted towards regional needs and national views, and that it best supports coastal towns and villages. It ensures that decisions are taken closer to the communities that the devolved Governments serve, so the sector can thrive for generations to come.

Although the Government respect the devolution settlement, I would like to encourage collaboration across all Governments to maximise the fund’s impact, as each Government will have their own insights into how the funding can be used, and will learn lessons over the fund’s lifetime.

[Seamus Logan]

I thank the Minister for her response. I would be failing in my duty to my constituents, and indeed to people across Scotland, if I did not reflect the anger, dismay and sense of betrayal that has greeted this set of fund allocations. On 5 March, ahead of the much-vaunted EU reset deal with the UK, the Prime Minister told me the following from the Dispatch Box:

“I recognise the huge and historic importance of the fishing industry in his constituency, and others, and I am determined to make the sector more secure, sustainable and economically successful.”—[Official Report, 5 March 2025; Vol. 763, c. 280.]

But we were once again used as a bargaining chip when EU access to Scottish waters was extended for another 12 years—way beyond what the EU negotiating team had hoped for.

Boris Johnson used those in the fishing industry as poster boys for his reckless Brexit campaign and then betrayed them afterwards, and now this Government have done exactly the same by reserving more than £300 million for English coastal communities over the next 12 years, while handing us pocket money. Despite Scotland representing 60% of our fishing capacity, despite it landing almost 50% of these islands’ catch, and despite more than 75% of all species caught having been landed by Scottish vessels, we have been offered a mere 7.78% of the fund.

My urgent question has been co-signed by colleagues from across the House who represent coastal communities across Scotland, including those in Orkney and Shetland, the Outer Hebrides, and Wales. My Welsh colleagues are equally dismayed at the crumbs they have been offered. I recognise that the Minister and her team may need time to get to grips with their brief, but her predecessor said he intended to engage fully with devolved Governments, and the Scottish Government have been ignored again. I urge the Minister to look at this decision. There is time before next March to take a fresh look at these allocations, and to recognise the crucial role that the fishing industry plays in our beautiful coastal communities, around our massive coastline, and in our island communities across Scotland. If the Minister is in any doubt about the strength of anger on this matter and about why it is so crucial, I repeat the offer I made to her yesterday to come to my constituency and see for herself.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I have been looking at the history of seafood support funds. The last one was a UK seafood fund, which was reserved by the then Government nationally, to be used in a strategic way. There were many vocal complaints that the fund should have been devolved. We have now devolved a fund in the way in which funds are always devolved: using the Barnett formula, which gives a 20%-a-head uplift to devolved Governments for all other spending.

I also note that the devolution settlements in the comprehensive spending review 2025 gave the Scottish Government another £8.5 billion that they can choose to spend in any way. It is always open to them to support the sector, which is an important industrial sector for them, with some of the money devolved to them in the CSR devolution settlement.

[Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for coming to the Dispatch Box, and the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) for raising this important issue. There is a question of fairness in the geographical distribution of the fund, and the Minister should consider that; I hope the funding will be reviewed in due course. There is another aspect to fairness, too: there should be fairness across the sector. I want the funding to be aimed at new entrants to fishing communities that face big challenges to do with depopulation, crewing and keeping themselves going. For example, the funding can be used to allocate and buy quota, so that local authorities can distribute it to new entrants, as happens to a limited degree in Orkney and in the Western Isles. I also want the funding to be aimed at new opportunities. This summer, an 800 lb tuna was landed in my constituency from the North Atlantic, and it is to be sold at a famous market in Tokyo.

Those are the kind of schemes, places, and fishing and coastal communities that the fund should be aimed at; we should not just funnel the money to the already wealthy quota barons who dominate the industry and the airwaves.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

My hon. Friend has made some interesting observations about creativity, which may well be applied to the fund. We are trying to co-design the way the fund will work—it is there for the next 12 years—so that we can be creative and think about how we support the younger generation of people who wish to go into the industry. Some of the suggestions that he has made are intriguing, and I will certainly follow them up with him and others.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)]

This fund is a weak apology from a Labour Government who, this year, have sold out the UK fishing industry. It is a mere sticking plaster—a rushed one, at best—that ignores the proportion of fish caught in different parts of these isles, involves the devolved Administrations poorly, and ignores evidence-based delivery and logic. This fund is Labour trying to buy off the UK fishing fleet, due to its disastrous 12-year deal with the EU; the deal is three times longer than the deal Labour sought. It prevents Britain from setting annual fishing quotas, as other independent coastal states do. Fishing organisations have called the deal a “horror show” for fishermen. Will the money be front-loaded and spent where it will have the greatest benefit for industry and coastal communities? What input will fishing organisations and representatives have in ensuring that the fund is spent in the right place?

Fishing is not just about the fish caught; it is also about the people and marine wildlife involved. Can the Government explain how the fund will support fishers’ mental health and efforts to protect marine wildlife, such as by ending bycatch? There is not enough detail for the industry to plan. How will the fund be delivered, how is it being targeted to support the fishing industry, and how are the Labour Government supporting the next generation of fishermen and women with the fund?

This fund is an example of the Labour Government trying to buy off the industry with a sticking plaster, rather than ensuring that the best deal for the British fishing industry is the one that they negotiate with the EU.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

The fund is about long-term transformation and partnership. We want to modernise the fishing sector, support coastal regeneration and build resilience in the industry across the UK. For that reason, we will co-design the fund with local communities and the industry. I am not able to answer the hon. Gentleman’s questions in detail at this precise moment, because we seek to co-operate with those who will be beneficiaries. When I am in a position to make further announcements, I certainly will.

[Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)]

As a coastal MP, I was delighted that my constituency was selected for £20 million of pride in place funding. How will those funds benefit coastal communities around the country?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Angela Eagle]

Pride in place funding is a new initiative from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. Colleagues will know that it is based very much on a bottom-up approach to improving place. My understanding is that allocations will be given and directed by local boards with community membership. That is an important way of doing regeneration. It is not doing things to people from on high; it means trying to involve and listen to those who live in those places, who know what is best. I hope that we will be able to apply that principle to the use of these funds over time.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

The Liberal Democrats of course welcome any further investment in our fishing communities, but coastal towns must have a proper say in how the money will be spent. The allocation of the funding must reflect the significance of the fishing industries across our isles. The proud fishermen in my North Cornwall constituency have been wrapped up in so much red tape, and face extra costs because of the Tories’ botched Brexit deal. They now want proper management of fish stocks, and a new byelaw to limit larger vessels inside the six-mile line. What steps are the Government taking to reverse that damage and provide our fishermen with greater access to their largest and closest market? How will the Government use this fund to give greater powers and resources to coastal communities, to allow them to invest properly in their local areas? Finally, can the Minister assure us that the fund will improve water quality, to protect our fishing industry in the future?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

On the hon. Gentleman’s last point, clearly improving water quality is another policy area. The coastal growth fund is not about improving water quality; it is about building resilience, helping to modernise the fishing industry through high tech, access to training and entry to the industry. We must not mix up Government support for different issues, and try to shove everything into one policy.

The hon. Gentleman also asks about the reset for export purposes. If we can do it properly, the reset with the EU will enable the export of fish and catch with much less red tape than we have ended up with, post Brexit. There are big gains to be made from that. Likewise, if we can get the free trade agreement to work properly, it will increase the prospect of fishing industry exports to other parts of the world.

[Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

Scottish salmon is renowned around the world for its quality and taste. How are the Government supporting the promotion of the Scottish salmon industry around the world?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

My hon. Friend is correct. I believe that the free trade deal with India took away all tariffs on Scottish salmon, so hopefully there will be a lot more of it heading that way soon.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I welcome the Minister to her new position. I have to say, though, if ever there were an illustration of the scale of the challenge facing Ministers in turning around the Department, this is it. Let us not forget that this fund was created because the Prime Minister rolled over for a further 12 years the catastrophically bad deal that Boris Johnson gave us for five years. If the Minister is sincere when she says that the aim of the Government is to maximise local investment, then using the Barnett formula to distribute the funding is ocean-going madness. By volume and value, Shetland alone accounts for 9% of the fish landed in this country, but Scotland as a whole will get only 8% of the funding. When will the funding formula be reviewed, and when will we hear exactly where the money will be spent and what it will be available for?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

The right hon. Gentleman will have to ask the Scottish Government about what they are going to do with their devolved part of the fund. He might also wish to ask them whether there is any extra money available from the devolved comprehensive spending review process, because they got an extra £8.5 billion to spend this year.

[Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)]

I warmly welcome the Government’s investment in a sustainable fishing and shellfish industry, which will create jobs and drive growth in coastal communities such as mine. Will the Minister provide a timeline for when stakeholders, such as the Whitby & District Fishing Industry Training School and the Whitby lobster hatchery, will be formally engaged in the process of developing and delivering this important fund?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

As I have said, we are at an early stage in the process of seeing how we can do this. We are committed to trying to co-design the fund, so I am happy to talk to my hon. Friend about how she wishes that co-operation to be taken forward in the fantastic area of Scarborough—it is near Bridlington, where I was born, which also has a little to do with crabs.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

In Lincolnshire we know all about fishing, because Grimsby used to be the world’s greatest fishing port. It beggars belief that we, a coastal nation, import twice as much fish as we export. Fishermen feel completely betrayed after years of vassalage to the European Union and this latest deal. We are where we are—we have this fund now—so I want to end on a positive note by asking my favourite Minister: will she ensure that she uses the fund to recreate fishing in areas such as Grimsby, which now has a miniscule amount of fishing, to help them to modernise, get more staff and rebuild our industry?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

The Father of the House knows that flattery will get him everywhere—obviously, I hold him in equally high esteem. Along with my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn), I am more than happy to work out how we can use this fund to do precisely as he suggests.

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome this fund. The Cornish fishing fleet, which has suffered, has put together a joined-up proposal for our part of the fund, so I would be grateful if the Minister could look at that. The proposal talks about front-loading the investment, multi-year project funding, science and research, and data collection about the number of fish that we catch and the way we catch them, and it particularly focuses on careers, skills and infrastructure. There was an announcement this week about an environmental lead regulator going into the development at Falmouth port, which will make a massive difference and speed up port infrastructure redevelopment. I urge the Minister, and the Government as a whole, to look at doing more of that, to look at local seafood production and to encourage people to eat local.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

It is rather odd that in this country we have to export more of what we catch because we eat what is caught elsewhere. Expanding the UK population’s view of what they can eat from the catch might make it easier to revive our fishing industry. I will be seeing a group of Cornish Members next week to talk about some of their detailed suggestions about the fund, and I am interested in all creative ideas.

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

This fund was set up to act as a sweetener to our fishing communities after they were completely sold out in the Government’s EU-Brexit reset. In that negotiation, 12 years of access to our seas were given away. Scotland lands three-quarters of the tonnage of fish in the UK and 60% of the value of UK fishing comes into Scotland. However, of this £360 million fund, Scottish fishermen will get only £28 million—7.7% of the fund. Does it really make sense to the Minister that Scotland gets 8% of the fund, when Scottish fishermen bring in so much of the value of fishing? If it does not make sense, what is she going to do about it?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

As I have mentioned, a predecessor fund—the UK seafood fund—was complained about massively because it was ringfenced and held at UK level. There were demands for it to be devolved, so we have devolved it and used the Barnett formula, and that is the way the allocations work. The Scottish Government can always spend some of their extra uplift—the largest uplift of a Scottish devolution settlement since devolution began—on supporting the fishing industry, should they so wish.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

Brixham has the highest-value catch in England, yet it is in Torbay, which is the most deprived local authority in the south-west of England. How will local levels of deprivation colour the allocation of funding for England?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

Part of the fund and its use is certainly about trying to create a more vibrant and modern fishing industry that is resilient, and part of that must be social resilience. I look forward to any of the views of the hon. Gentleman’s constituents on how the fund could best be used, but we must remember that it is fishing-related, not general; it is there to modernise and make more resilient the UK’s fishing industry.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

When the fishing and coastal growth fund was announced, the Government said that they had also secured a new sanitary and phytosanitary agreement to slash red tape for UK seafood exporters and businesses. Can the Minister tell the fishing fleet in King’s Lynn, Brancaster and around the Norfolk coast when that deal will actually be implemented?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

We are awaiting the EU mandate, which the Commission tells us will be available by the end of November. We are very anxious to then get on to doing the SPS deal as quickly as possible, so that we can tear away all the red tape caused by Brexit. That has caused so much damage and made it so hard for the UK fishing industry to trade with our closest neighbour.

[Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)]

Some 90% of our fishing fleet in Wales are small, under-10 metre boats. The Seafish “Economics of the UK Fishing Fleet” report for the last year found that while Scotland and England saw strong fishing income growth, profits in Wales fell by nearly 10%, despite more active days at sea. Does the Minister agree that funding based on what the sector and the fishing communities need in Wales would be far more fair and effective than the outdated Barnett formula?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

It is important that we try to support all our fishing industry around the UK. The idea of devolving the fund was to allow the devolved Administrations to do that in their particular areas, because they have more information and views on how best to support. Some £18 million of extra support in the fund goes directly to Wales, which can be used and decided upon by the Senedd to support its local industry.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

The East Neuk fishing fleet in my constituency may not be delivering what Shetland does in terms of tonnage, but it is critical, and it faces challenges around spatial mass and recruitment. I associate myself with the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) in relation to how the fund will be distributed. May I query the Minister in relation to the 12-year span of the plan? Obviously it is linked to the EU agreement, but what guarantees can the Minister actually give us that the fund will last for those 12 years? Otherwise, what is proposed becomes meagre.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

No Parliament can bind its successor, but it is not usual for funds announced in this way to be suddenly ended at the beginning of the next Parliament. We certainly want to ensure that we put in place plans that are so useful and effective that no subsequent Government would even think of cutting the fund. It would be half.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister very much for her answers to all our inquiries. I absolutely welcome the fund and thank her for the goals that match the funding. However, with the Northern Ireland funding allocation for fishermen being based on the Barnett consequentials, I do not feel that the £10 million designated for Northern Ireland is enough for the goals of investment in technology and equipment for a new generation of fishermen as well as the necessary harbour updates. A real concern I have is that these moneys may not be ringfenced to ensure that they are not frittered away on the goals and aspirations of devolved Ministers, rather than going directly to the fleets. What guidelines are in place to safeguard the use of this fund and to ensure that every penny rebuilds our fishing fleets, such as those in Portavogie, Ardglass and Kilkeel?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

Clearly, the way that devolution works is that the Government in Westminster, once we have distributed funds via the Barnett formula, cannot ringfence them in any of the devolved Administrations. That would be a ridiculous misinterpretation of what devolution means, and I am sure that those devolved Administrations would be the first to complain if we tried. The hon. Member—I thank him for his welcome to me—needs to talk to the Northern Ireland Assembly about what it is going to do. We want the fund to be used for the purposes for which it was created, but by definition the devolution settlement takes the ringfence off, so he must have his arguments with the Assembly.

[Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) for securing this urgent question. The aggregated coastline of my constituency is greater than that of France, so the fishing industry plays a crucial part in its economic wellbeing. Having barely survived the disaster of Brexit, this latest decision by the UK Government is another kick in the teeth to those fishing communities. We are all agreed that this formula is fundamentally unfair, so did the Secretary of State for Scotland come to the Minister’s Department at any point and specifically urge her to reverse this decision—yes or no?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

Following Brexit—since leaving the EU under the trade and co-operation agreement—the UK received an uplift in its fishing quota. Some 65% of that uplift went to Scotland. That was worth £107 million on 2024 figures, so I think Scotland got a reasonable deal. Remember that the uplift in the quota, which creates real income, is locked in going forward.

[Mr Speaker]

This was a very important and well attended urgent question, and I thank the Minister for coming to the Chamber to answer it. One of the arguments made to me for not granting it was that “there will be a Westminster Hall debate next Wednesday, though on an unrelated subject: banning plastic wipes”—I know that argument was not from the Minister, who I again thank. I think we can see that the urgent question was very important.

Countryside Stewardship Mid-tier Agreements

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2025 Written Statements

[The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Dame Angela Eagle)]

Today, I announce that this Government will offer one-year extensions to more than 5,000 farmers with Countryside Stewardship mid-tier agreements expiring this year.

Countryside Stewardship pays farmers and land managers for environmental work alongside sustainable food production. This targeted, time-limited extension ensures they will continue to be rewarded for their vital role in sustainable food production and nature’s recovery.

With agreements set to expire on 31 December this year, one-year extensions are being offered while the Government develop the reformed sustainable farming incentive for 2026, refreshes the environmental improvement plan and rolls out the new Countryside Stewardship higher-tier scheme. This is part of our plan to give farmers long-term strategic certainty.

The Rural Payments Agency (RPA) will write to eligible farmers with details about their extension offer. The letter will contain details of how they accept their extension and the deadline they need to meet for it to be processed.

The one-off investment of up to £70 million from within existing budgets ensures more than 5,000 farmers, foresters and landowners have the support they need to continue their vital role in sustainable food production and nature’s recovery. It reflects our commitment to working with the sector to build a stronger, more profitable farming future.

The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Emma Reynolds) and I will now review plans for the sustainable farming incentive to ensure the available funding is distributed more efficiently and more fairly. The Government will publish information on the next iteration of the scheme in due course.

Funding for farmers through the environmental land management schemes, which include the Countryside Stewardship mid-tier scheme, will increase by 150% to £2 billion by 2029, helping to boost rural economies, strengthen domestic food production and enhance the UK’s natural environment for future generations. This underpins the Government’s cast iron commitment to food security and creating more resilient farm businesses.

Through the Countryside Stewardship mid-tier scheme, farmers are planting wildflower margins to boost pollinators and managing hedgerows to create vital habitats for birds and small mammals—alongside sustainable food production.

Investing in nature through the Government’s plan for change is central to securing Britain’s future economic growth, developing a sustainable, resilient and profitable farming sector, and ensuring long-term food security.

[HCWS965]