Dame Angela Eagle
MP for Wallasey · Labour · United Kingdom
“The Kremlin increasingly relies on proxy organisations to pursue its objectives, seeking to undermine our security while maintaining a degree of plausible deniability. The so-called GRU Volunteer Corps is a clear example of that approach. It is not an independent force or a loose collection of volunteers.”
“This Government have introduced support for the Jewish communities who have been threatened and directly targeted by IRGC proxies. Just a couple of days ago, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced an extra £250 million for policing to ensure that we can support and protect our Jewish communities.”
“I will move on to the Islamic Movement of Companions of the Right. The IMCR has publicly claimed seven attacks at UK locations linked to Jewish and Israeli communities and to Persian-language media, including the antisemitic arson attack on four Hatzola ambulances in Golders Green on 23 March.”
“We expect platforms to act responsibly and not to provide space for state threat-linked activity, propaganda or recruitment. We will be keeping a close eye on that, as well as liaising with social media companies to tell them about how this law impacts them.”
“The IRGC Quds Force and the IRGC Intelligence Organisation, together with the Ministry of Intelligence and Security, form the Iranian intelligence apparatus. As a key component of the Iranian state’s security apparatus, the IRGC is answerable directly to Iran’s Supreme Leader.”
“It provides a targeted and proportionate means of disrupting those involved in foreign power threat activity based on the recommendations of Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of state threat legislation. To answer the hon.”
The complete record
Every one of 5,924 lines we hold for Dame Angela Eagle, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 119.
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“We are working across Government to respond to the pressures created by the middle east conflict. I have asked the Competition and Markets Authority to consider industry concerns about fertiliser and we have increased the frequency of official fertiliser price reporting, which is now published weekly by the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board giving farmers faster and more transparent information.”
“May I point out that UK production of fertiliser using those processes was made reliant on America because the last Government decided to close the ammonia factory? In looking at resilience, the Chancellor has announced a business engagement exercise to consider whether targeting tariff cuts on fertiliser would be of assistance, so that is an ongoing issue.”
“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.”
“I am in close contact with domestic fertiliser suppliers. I held a ministerial roundtable with them and industry leaders across food farming and the supply chain to hear about the pressures and confirm our readiness to act when required, so the hon. Lady can be assured that we will do that. Let me take this opportunity to welcome her to her role on the Opposition Front Bench—she is a sort of constituency neighbour, really.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“We have also engaged with farmers and stakeholders on the 25-year farming road map, which will set out the Government’s long-term vision for farming, giving farmers the clarity they need to plan ahead. We want farm businesses that are productive, profitable and resilient, while contributing to food security and nature recovery. The reductions to delinked payments are essential to enable us to make the planned investments in the future of farming and the countryside. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.”
“This funding forms part of the Government’s commitment to invest at least £200 million in agricultural innovation by 2030 to improve productivity and to trial new technology as part of the UK’s modern industrial strategy. We will spend up to £30 million over three years on a new approach to farm collaboration and advice, and we are working with Dr Hilary Cottam to develop a place-based approach for upland communities. We have also extended the farming in protected landscapes programme for another three years, until March 2029. We want to continue to work in partnership with the sector. We have established a farming and food partnership board, which brings together voices from farming, food, retail and finance to drive profitability, building on the recommendations made in Baroness Batters’s farming profitability review.”
“Landscape recovery projects that were awarded funding in rounds 1 and 2 are continuing to progress towards the delivery phase. Plans for a third round will be confirmed in due course. The latest round of the environmental land management capital grant offer will open in July, backed by £225 million in funding—a 50% increase from the last financial year. We have also announced plans for £120 million in innovation and productivity grants in 2026-27. Such grants can help the sector to access cutting edge technology and techniques, such as robotic weeders, which reduce chemical use in our countryside and help farmers to grow more food.”
“There are now 50,000 farm businesses, and half of all farmland is managed under our environmental land management schemes. Earlier this year, we announced plans for a new sustainable farming incentive offer, and the first application window will open later this month. The new offer will ensure that more farmers can access funding. A range of improvements are being introduced to make the sustainable farming incentive 2026 simpler, more streamlined and easier to navigate. The new offer will continue to support sustainable farming by strengthening the environmental foundations of farm profitability and our long-term food security. Last September, the new countryside stewardship higher tier opened for applications for those who have been invited to apply. They have received pre-application advice and completed any preparatory work.”
“We announced the reductions last June to help farmers to plan ahead. The money released from delinked payments is being reinvested in the sector. Farmers and land managers will benefit from an average of £2.3 billion a year over the period 2026-27 and 2028-29 through the farming and countryside programme, and get up to £400 million extra from additional nature schemes, including those for tree planting and restoring peatlands. The investment includes increasing annual funding to the environmental land management schemes from £1.8 billion in 2025-26 to more than £2 billion by 2028-29. That means we are backing farmers with the largest nature-friendly budget in history to support them to restore nature and boost farm productivity.”
“We will continue to invest in our farmers and land managers, to make their businesses, food production and our country more sustainable and resilient in the years ahead. Reducing delinked payments is essential if we are to fund the other schemes that will help us to achieve that. Delinked payments do not address the underlying challenges affecting farm profitability; they do not support the healthy soils, abundant pollinators and clean water needed to produce good food, or promote innovation and provide good value for money. The reductions to delinked payments will complete the move away from the previous scheme, which rewarded land ownership, with 50% of payments going to the largest 10% of firms. We are applying the reductions fairly, with larger reductions to amounts of the higher payment band.”
“I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Agriculture (Delinked Payments) (Reductions) (England) Regulations 2026. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. This is the first time that you and I have been in the same room in this context. The draft regulations, which were laid before the House on 10 March, will set the reductions applying to delinked payments for England for the years 2026 and 2027. In doing so, they will deliver on our commitment to phase out those subsidies by the end of the seven-year agricultural transition period, as we redirect funding to our other schemes for farmers. The last year of delinked payments will be 2027. The Government are committed to supporting our farmers and the vital role they play.”
“We are shifting to a much more sustainable model, and although the Opposition indicated that they will vote against the draft regulations, I hope that everybody can support that shift in principle. The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley said that we are going too fast, but the farming transition was a seven-year transition. All the ELM schemes and support for farmers will be involved in protecting nature and increasing sustainability, rather than going towards delinked payments. He seems to object not to the end point, but to the speed of the transition over the next two years. I understand what he is saying, but I think that he is dancing on the head of a pin.”
“I thank all those who have contributed to this short but perfectly formed debate. The draft regulations were announced last June as part of a process that commenced under the previous Government following Brexit, when they announced a seven-year programme to transition away from the common agricultural policy, which makes delinked payments, to a much more focused environmental policy. The previous Government created that policy and the then Labour Opposition supported it, because we both accepted that farming has to be done on a more sustainable basis. We must see nature recovery, we must invest in healthy soils and in recreating healthy pollinator populations, and we must ensure reasonable food production rather than degrading our natural assets and resources to maximise food production at any cost.”
“The Government’s new farming and food partnership board has set out how it will work to drive growth in all sectors, improving productivity and profitability. It is beginning its work with two sectors—horticulture and poultry—but it will get on to work in others. Our vision is to help farmers to improve their productivity and profitability, and to collaborate with them on delivering positive environmental change. Continuing to phase out delinked payments will enable us to invest in the long-term future of farming, by ensuring that funding is targeted where it can have the greatest impact. I commend the regulations to the Committee. Question put.”
“Member for Keighley and Ilkley said that it was for small farms only, but the first window is also open to those without an existing agreement, so it is a slightly wider opening than he hinted at in his speech. As was announced at the NFU conference, in 2026-27 we will invest £120 million in new productivity grants, which can help businesses to cut costs, improve efficiency and protect profits. Farmers can also boost their businesses through the animal health and welfare pathway, a programme designed to strengthen biosecurity, manage disease risks and improve animal health and welfare outcomes, which, in turn, boost farm productivity and profitability. We are also continuing our work to ensure fair competition across the supply chain, and have announced planning reform to unlock food and farming infrastructure development.”
“We have provided a breakdown of how we plan to spend an average of £2.3 billion a year through the farming and countryside programme, showing planned spend for each of the years between 2026-27 and 2028-29. That was set out in a farming blog, which is available on the Government website. It is clear that we cannot achieve our environmental goals or have food security unless farm businesses are profitable. By increasing investment in our environmental land management schemes, we are helping farmers to protect the environment and the business foundations of farming—our soils, our water and our pollinators—which will help to reduce their input costs and boost productivity. We know that there is high demand from farmers for our ELM schemes, so I am pleased that SFI26 will be opening to small farms later this month. The hon.”
“The vast majority of them know that it has to happen, and we will see what we can do to ensure that it does. The money released by reducing delinked payments is not being lost to the sector; it is being reinvested through our other schemes for farmers and managers. We are being transparent about how the money is used. Each year, we publish a farming and countryside partnership annual report, which shows how the farming budget has been spent. The report for the financial year 2024-25 was published last September. We will publish our next report later this year. That will be transparent about where the money has gone and how it has been spent.”
“Without the reductions contained in the draft regulations, spend on delinked payments in each of the years 2026-27 and 2027-28 would increase to £1.8 billion, leaving a shortfall in the remaining farming budget for each of those years that then could not be spent on financing the transition. Those who believe in the principle of the transition need also to believe in the means. My hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk spoke extremely well about his farmers, and I welcome his support. I understand that the transition can be difficult and worrisome, but it is crucial for the future of our farming profitability and resilience that we manage to get this done. The Government are determined to assist farmers all we possibly can in achieving the transition.”
“Sufficient notification has been given, since the transition began seven years ago—everybody has been expecting it. It is important that we get the transition done. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the money being taken away from delinked payments is going straight back into the system and will be available for the transition. The Government remain convinced that delinked payments are not an effective way of supporting our farmers, protecting food security or restoring nature. Former Secretary of State Lord Gove certainly agreed with that when he began the transition after Brexit. We continue to invest in our environmental land management schemes and our range of grants and other support for farmers to deliver public goods, reward sustainable farming and boost productivity.”
“The Government stand ready to help farmers do just that, whether through our innovation funds and equipment grants, or our continued shift from area-based subsidy to environmental land management schemes.”
“DEFRA’s new nutrient management planning tool is supporting farmers by matching nutrients to crop and soil needs, enabling them to make the most of nutrient sources, reducing their reliance on artificial fertilisers. Over 500 farms have used this since it was launched. We are also consulting and gathering evidence to modernise fertiliser product regulations, improving future supply options and resilience. The pressures imposed by events in the middle east only underline the importance of increasing the efficiency of fertiliser use. Whether through more effective use of technology or adoption of more sustainable farming practices, we can better equip our farmers and growers to produce food in a more resilient way.”