Angela Eagle MP: speeches

Speeches

• 17 Jun 2026 · National Security (State Threats) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I suspect that lawyers often use words like “likely”, because they are very rarely ready to commit to “absolutely”. Perhaps we need to deal with some of this in more detail in Committee, but we are assured that overseas activity will be covered in the interactions of this Bill, and case law makes that more likely. I am loath to go through in detail the Committee-style points that were made during the debate. What I will say is that designation is the closest we can get to state-inspired and connected proxies or organisations, so that we can prevent them from behaving in the way that they are behaving on our streets day in, day out. A designation will allow us to ensure that we capture and prosecute the malign activity in which hybrid and state actors involve themselves, so this Bill closes the gap that Jonathan Hall discovered in the National Security Act. We wish to get the Bill on the statute book so that we can deal with the rising threats on our streets, which many Members on both sides of the House mentioned in their Second Reading speeches. I am extremely grateful that all Front Benchers support the Bill and will not vote against it, and I look forward to dealing with some of the amendments in much greater detail in Committee. I urge the House to give this Bill a Second Reading. Question put and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Committee of the whole House (Order, this day).

• 17 Jun 2026 · National Security (State Threats) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am more than happy to create a circumstance in which we can do that. I think there have been some misunderstandings about what protections are offered in the Bill, and some of the amendments seek to address gaps that are not actually there. However, I am more than happy to deal with that, and I will be in touch with the right hon. Gentleman to organise it before the Bill goes to the House of Lords. The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) said that the Bill did not take into account activity outside the UK. She was wrong to say that that was not covered. The offences capture activity outside the UK where it is contrary to the safety or interests of the UK, and case law has made it clear that the definition of “safety and interests of the UK” is wide. As I have said, we have worked closely with operational partners to shape the Bill, and we are confident that it will provide the powers that are needed. There have been successful prosecutions under the National Security Act, which demonstrates that powers of this kind work.

• 17 Jun 2026 · National Security (State Threats) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I have a great deal of respect for my right hon. Friend, as he knows, but in order for that to be the case, this Government would have to decide to designate the Cuba Solidarity Campaign. Obviously I cannot talk about what may or may not be designated should the Bill get on the statute book, but I think he is winding himself up into a bit of a tight knot.

• 17 Jun 2026 · National Security (State Threats) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Bill does accord with the European convention on human rights, international law and all our obligations. The prohibited purpose test is there precisely to give assurance to bodies like the one that the hon. Member mentioned, so that there will not be any dubiety about whether they can engage with the organisations that they must work with as part of their core job.

• 17 Jun 2026 · National Security (State Threats) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Yes. This is the test that delivers that assurance.

• 17 Jun 2026 · National Security (State Threats) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I have to commend the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) for doing her homework. I wish to explain why we do not think these amendments are needed at the moment. There are a couple of themes that run through my response to the hon. Lady’s amendments. The first is that it is not possible to treat a state body the same as a terrorist organisation, because one cannot abolish a state body. One has to think about the differences between the two, which is why we have called the measure closing the loophole in this Bill designation, rather than proscription. It is also the case that we clearly have other international obligations, both under international law, for the sovereignty of individual states, and under diplomatic law, with the Vienna convention, so that we can enable diplomatic relations or other arrangements with states that we might not approve of particularly. Within that difference lie some of the different approaches in the Bill and in the hon. Lady’s amendments. The other common theme, which perhaps divides us in our approach to the Bill, as well as explaining the differences and why we will not be accepting the hon. Lady’s amendments, is that we are not trying to put all of Jonathan Hall’s recommendations on to the statute book in this Bill. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said in her opening remarks, we have accepted all the recommendations in Jonathan Hall’s report and will be legislating for them subsequently. What we wish to do with this quite narrow Bill is close that loophole with state-sponsored or proxy organisations as quickly as possible so that we can deal with the rising threats present on our streets as we speak. It may help to bear those two things in mind as I lay out the Government’s position regarding the amendments that the hon. Lady has just spoken to. Through amendments 3 to 6, the hon. Lady seeks to remove the prohibited purpose test. The test is there precisely to cover the difference in treatment between terrorist organisations and states, which we cannot proscribe and with which we may have to have some kind of arrangements. While the Bill is modelled on the provisions in the Terrorism Act 2000, it has to reflect the realities of dealing with state entities. That is what the prohibited purpose test is about. There may be some cases where UK persons need to have legitimate dealings with a state entity; it might be a British diplomat or a non-governmental organisation delivering humanitarian aid. The prohibited purpose test is necessary to protect legitimate conduct without creating loopholes that can be exploited by hostile actors.

• 17 Jun 2026 · National Security (State Threats) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I note the hon. Lady’s point. Amendment 10 would “create an offence of engaging in conduct in preparation for committing, or assisting another to commit, an offence relating to a designated body.” It is not necessary, because a person who engages in conduct of any kind, including preparatory conduct, that is intended to assist a designated body in carrying out UK-related activities would be caught by the Bill’s provisions. The hon. Lady talked about what she called a loophole; she said that the Bill does not cover attacks inspired by a designated body. Her amendment 13 would create a new offence for self-directed acts inspired by a designated body, but we do not believe it is necessary. The test for the assisting offence in proposed new section 17B of the National Security Act is whether conduct is intended to assist a designated organisation, or whether the person ought to have known that their conduct was likely to assist the organisation. The person does not need to be tasked or directed by the organisation to commit the offence, so those who are inspired to do things, rather than being asked or told to do things by the designated body, are caught. With amendment 8, the hon. Lady seeks to capture conduct that occurs outside the UK but is planned within the UK. Again, we believe it is unnecessary. If planning takes place in the UK, it is already caught in the Bill, under the offence in proposed new section 17B of assisting a designated body. That offence refers to conduct of any kind, and it will be an offence to plan something in the UK that takes place outside the UK if it materially assists a designated body in carrying out activities that are prejudicial to the safety or interests of the UK—the prohibited purpose test. That could cover someone in the UK who assists a designated body in its work, done overseas, to target an ally of the UK, so the amendment is unnecessary. Amendment 14 would create an offence relating to the dissemination of publications that encourage support for a designated body. The conduct that the amendment seeks to address is already covered by the new offence of supporting a designated body. I think the hon. Lady wanted people to be criminalised for wearing clothing or displaying flags or similar symbols linked to a designated body. The Bill does not ban the wearing or carrying of an image, because we cannot ban what might be worn by a foreign diplomat, but if somebody is supporting or promoting the hostile activities of a proscribed body in any way, they will be caught by the new support offence. I hope that assures the hon. Lady that that issue is covered. New clauses 5 and 6 would give effect to other recommendations made by Jonathan Hall by creating new powers to seize travel documents, and to allow police to apply for serious crime prevention orders in relation to offences committed under this legislation. We are committed to legislating on those recommendations and, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced on Second Reading, we will do so as soon as parliamentary time allows.

• 17 Jun 2026 · National Security (State Threats) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I think it is about consistency. The Bill was drafted to try to mirror—albeit in a slightly different context—the Terrorism Act provisions, while fitting into the National Security Act’s provisions, so that we do not have a complicated range of tests. Amendment 7 relates to defences and sentencing. Essentially, the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) wishes to increase the prison sentence for actively assisting to 25 years from the current 14 years. The idea is that 14 years would very much fit in with the sentences under the National Security Act, and we would not end up with a complex range of sentences for quite similar offences. One could increase both, if we were minded to do so, but the point about the introduction of designation in the Bill is that it is trying to fit into the National Security Act, which has been working quite well, rather than our having a whole range of different sentences for very similar offences.

• 17 Jun 2026 · National Security (State Threats) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time. This Bill will create crucial new powers to allow the Government to keep pace with the evolving threat picture that Members from all parties referred to in the previous debates. The Bill will now move on to the other place, where I am sure colleagues will give it rigorous scrutiny while ensuring that its passage continues as smoothly as possible.

• 17 Jun 2026 · National Security (State Threats) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Action that is prejudicial to the safety and interests of the UK is the test that we are talking about. If one were delivering humanitarian aid and had to deal with part of a state that we did not particularly approve of, that would not be prejudicial to the safety or interests of the UK. It would be in line with what the UK wished to do, but if it were prejudicial, because it was hostile activity, the test would be passed.

• 17 Jun 2026 · National Security (State Threats) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  New clause 3, tabled by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), would require the Secretary of State to bring forward regulations designating the IRGC within a month of this Act coming into force, but the exercise of these powers under this Bill will have significant implications for national security and foreign policy, and it is right that they should be exercised independently by the Secretary of State on the basis of expert advice, including from the security and intelligence agencies. That is what this Bill allows, and putting these designations on the face of the Bill would be a very difficult way to effect the change, so the way to do this is the way that the Bill sets out. The hon. Member for Cheltenham’s new clause 4, which would “require the Independent Reviewer of State Threats Legislation to assess the adequacy of the powers introduced by this Act twelve months after its passing”, is already essentially covered by the Bill’s provisions, because they would be subject to part 3 of the National Security Act. The independent reviewer of state threats legislation has to carry out an annual review into the operation of its provisions, and is also empowered by part 1 of that Act to review any other such things he or she sees fit. Amendment 2 would require the draft affirmative procedure to be used for regulations removing a designation. He is right that such regulations should receive the proper parliamentary scrutiny, and the Bill already provides that such regulations are subject to the draft affirmative procedure. The use of the negative procedure is limited to very minor technical changes, such as the addition of aliases. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) asked whether it would be possible to proscribe a particular group, and gave a particular example. The test is whether the body is engaged in “foreign power threat activity”; it is a high bar, and it targets organisations that pose a real threat to the UK. I cannot imagine for one minute that my right hon. Friend would be involved in any of those. Amendment 1, tabled by the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone), would provide further examples of conduct that would be considered a material benefit, and he spoke about what those might be. Obtaining material benefits from a foreign intelligence service is an existing offence under section 17 of the National Security Act, so I do not think the further examples of conduct in amendment 1 are needed, as that conduct is already caught by the provisions in the Bill.

• 17 Jun 2026 · National Security (State Threats) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is not only diplomats. It may well be NGOs delivering humanitarian aid and people who have to come across states or their designated proxies in particular cases.

• 17 Jun 2026 · National Security (State Threats) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I think it is to cover all potential actions that individuals may undertake that are okay; they can assure themselves that an activity is okay, even if it involves a designated state, if it is not prejudicial to the safety or interests of the UK. Many humanitarian organisations are worried about being inadvertently caught in the designation process, and the prohibited purpose test is there to give assurance in those contexts.

• 4 Jun 2026 · Food Welfare Labelling · Hansard source

  More

  I am more than happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to talk about this important issue, if he so desires, or a cross-party group of MPs. I point out that in the recent trade deals, both with the Gulf Co-operation Council and India, we have protected both the poultry egg and poultry meat sectors from the kind of approach we saw in the trade deal that the Conservative Government did with Australia.

• 4 Jun 2026 · Food Welfare Labelling · Hansard source

  More

  I am happy to meet the rural research group to talk about these important issues, but under UK food labelling rules, food that is not of UK origin cannot be labelled with a British flag, and if the primary ingredient is not British, it cannot be labelled as such without pointing out that the primary ingredient is not British. If my hon. Friend has any examples of where that is happening, I would like to see them.

• 4 Jun 2026 · Food Welfare Labelling · Hansard source

  More

  As set out in our welfare strategy, we are working with the farming and food industry, vets and scientists to explore how improved animal welfare labelling could improve consumer transparency, support farmers and promote better animal welfare.

• 4 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I think “robust” would probably be my summary. To help with the pressure on food prices, we are planning to cut tariffs on over 100 everyday food products such as olive oil, biscuits and chocolate, saving consumers more than a £150 million a year. We have ensured that the items selected for tariff suspension have little to no production in the UK, so protecting and securing our vital domestic production.

• 4 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I lobby the Home Office constantly on quite a lot of things; I will certainly make sure that daffodils are also taken into account.

• 4 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The farming and food partnership board is looking at profitability, and the sector growth plans for horticulture and poultry have already been announced. We have reduced red diesel duty, we will open the reformed SFI and will shortly publish our 25-year farming road map, our response to the Batters farming profitability review.

• 4 Jun 2026 · Support for Farming: Wales · Hansard source

  More

  Farming is devolved, so the first port of call for Welsh farmers is the Welsh Government. As I said, I am looking forward to meeting the new Minister and will do my best to work with all the devolved Administrations, including in Wales.

• 4 Jun 2026 · Support for Farming: Wales · Hansard source

  More

  The Government are taking decisive action to support our farming sector, with farmers in Wales benefiting from measures such as cutting the duty on red diesel to its lowest rate in over 20 years. I look forward to meeting Wales’s new Rural Resilience and Sustainability Minister and working closely with him to support the farming sector.

• 4 Jun 2026 · UK-EU Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement · Hansard source

  More

  We are cleaning up the mess left by the Conservatives’ botched Brexit deal that reduced exports by 22%, so I will not take any lessons from the hon. Gentleman.

• 4 Jun 2026 · UK-EU Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement · Hansard source

  More

  I have engaged directly with Salmon Scotland on the UK-EU SPS agreement, and colleagues have discussed the deal with the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation. We will continue that close engagement as negotiations progress, and we are committed to supporting businesses and providing clear guidance, so that they are ready to benefit from the agreement from day one.

• 4 Jun 2026 · UK-EU Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement · Hansard source

  More

  Now that certain democratic processes have taken place, I am looking forward to being able to come north of the border. I can assure the hon. Member that I am well aware that 65% of all UK seafood is exported to the EU, and therefore the more friction we can take away from that border crossing, the more certainty there is and the more value those exports have. Given that as a nation, we tend to export a lot of the fish we catch rather than eat it ourselves, this is clearly a very important issue.

• 4 Jun 2026 · Cost of Fertiliser · Hansard source

  More

  The Government are committed to ensuring that fertiliser markets work fairly for farmers and to strengthening resilience in the supply chain. We are ensuring that we can have a more reliable source of fertiliser and more efficient use in our own country, and we are doing a lot of work on this issue as I speak.