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 49 of 119.
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray—I think for the first time. It is important for us to do a little translation of this highly technical set of instruments that are before us in the event of no deal; I presume that when he replies to the debate, the Minister will confirm that these changes will automatically become defunct if there is a deal. What we are really talking about with benchmarking is the price of particular assets and contracts being swapped, traded or changed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East so pointedly observed, this is about trillions of pounds swilling through various international markets in—”
“I have been in the House for 27 years, and I can read quite a few words a minute, but I must confess that I have never come across a statutory instrument that I can automatically understand just because of that, especially in such a complex area.”
“The Treasury has decided that the familiarisation cost of a statutory instrument for one firm is the number of words in the statutory instrument divided by the number of words that one can read in a minute—as if being able to read the statutory instrument means that one automatically understands it. In one of the most complex areas of regulation and statutory authority, that is the best that HMRC can come up with. By the way, that figure has to be multiplied by one over 60 and by the hourly wage rate, which is £330 for a solicitor or legal executive with more than four years’ experience. What a joke! Is the Minister really suggesting that if one could read the statutory instrument at so many words per minute, one would automatically understand what it meant?”
“Large numbers of his ministerial colleagues have not been able to do that, which is a disgrace. That is the way in which the Government are dealing with the situation we find ourselves in. The costs that the Minister puts before us are described as “unknown: likely significant” or “significant”. There is an inability to quantify the cost to business and to those who are in the market of the sudden change and the no-deal scenario. At a macro level, it is significant but unknowable, but at a micro level, in annex A, the Treasury has come up with a ridiculous little formula for the familiarisation costs for individual companies—as an ex-Treasury Minister, I am familiar with that kind of thing.”
“I do not mean to be horrible, but the Minister is suddenly giving it a lot of responsibility, with new staff: if we get it wrong and there is regulatory arbitrage to be exploited in the way the system works, we know that it will be. That might include leaving loopholes for huge market manipulation and enrichment at the expense of customers, pensioners and the people who are investing in the instruments, who will be traders. If the Minister does not get it right, the consequences will be huge. How big is the risk? The impact assessment does not really talk about how big it is or the likely costs of the changes. I congratulate the Minister on being one of the few Ministers who has managed to produce an assessment to put before one of these statutory instrument Committees, which we are attending in great numbers at the moment.”
“It is therefore absolutely and utterly crucial that, if we are to establish this kind of regime, we had better be sure that we are doing it correctly, that we have the time to do it correctly and that we have enough people in the FCA with enough sophistication to do it correctly. I worry about the size of our market—£130 billion in gross value, according to the Minister’s own figures. With the sudden ramping up from a mere 28 employees at the FCA to 158 full-time staff, which the Minister talked about, they are going to have to be some of the most sophisticated people on this earth. I hope he is paying them properly— [ Interruption. ] Not him personally, but the Government, of whom he is the representative in Committee. They had better be good at their jobs. I want the Minister to reassure us about that. Is the FCA up to it?”
“If 2008 taught us anything, it was that these very complex and increasingly complicated global money and asset markets, for which these benchmarks effectively represent what is meant to be a market-generated price, are the weakest and least-regulated points across the world. The regime that is the most hands-off becomes the weakest, and—at the same time, paradoxically—the strongest defence against manipulation and disaster. We know disasters such as the global financial crash affect real people’s lives across the globe. The draft regulations might look like very dry, boring, technical changes that the Minister has brought before us, but they are actually crucial. They are about real issues of financial stability, potential market manipulation and cheating. If we do not get this right, we will become the weakest link.”
“However, we then discovered that a great deal of nefariosity—I do not know whether that is a word—was going on, and that people’s rewards for indulging in that nefariosity were colossal. That is why all these regulations had to be immediately generated. That is the first thing. This is about a hugely important area of potential market manipulation and cheating, the risks of which, until we became aware the LIBOR scandal, were tiny and the rewards from which, if one indulged in it and got away with it, were colossal. We also need to think not only about the individual market manipulation that might happen if we get this wrong, but about financial stability itself.”
“In assets, cash, pensions, contracts, swaps and all the things that currently make up our global trade in such issues. As the Minister points out from a sedentary position, many people’s future retirement plans are crucially dependent on getting this right. These kind of EU regulations came into being in the first place because of the LIBOR scandal and the evidence of significant cheating in creating the prices of these benchmarks for these trades to happen. Until the LIBOR scandal, nobody had really looked at how international benchmarks such as LIBOR were generated. Everybody thought it simply happened according to market mechanisms, and that absolutely nothing nefarious was going on.”
“I would also like the Minister to tell us a little about the risks that he thinks this regime poses if the FCA really cannot get through to organising these benchmarks and transposing them in practical terms into UK law in the appropriate time scale, in what is a very changing situation—regulating an industry that we know will exploit every tiny bit of regulatory arbitrage that it can come across for its own profit.”
“I agree, but what worries me more about the formula than the variable that the hon. Lady talks about is the idea that somehow reading equals full comprehension of technical subjects. The Minister ought to go back and have a closer look at that, and the Treasury officials who are accompanying him certainly ought to come up with a more sophisticated formula for trying to see what the costs will be. To sum up, we do not know what these things will cost. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East has posed some very important questions about how all of them mesh together and whether there have actually been changes in definitions—sneaky little changes that have gone beyond what the withdrawal Act allows in terms of just transposing issues from EU law into UK law. We would like to know the answers.”
“It is difficult to think of scenarios that we hope will not happen. We all hope that at some stage sense will break out and there will be time to do this disentangling. Will the Minister reassure me that if there is no deal, the regime that these changes will put in place will be in place the day after no deal, and that there will not be large numbers of loopholes through which very rapid trading, which can be instantaneous, can occur, leading to huge profiteering?”
“The hon. Gentleman may be a turbo-charged understander and reader of things, which perhaps I am not, but is he really telling the Committee that if one has read a statutory instrument as technical as this, one automatically understands it at so many words a minute?”
“I seek your guidance on the appearance of a distinction that I deplore and that certainly was never present when I first came into the House.”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I seek your guidance about a trend that seems to be becoming more and more prevalent? When reading newspapers and listening to the reporting in anticipation of the motion that we will be discussing today in the forthcoming debate and all the amendments, I have come across a phrase, which has clearly come from the Government, being used a lot, which is that this motion is “non-binding” on the Government. When I came into this House, it was a point of honour and the unwritten rule that if the Government lost motions and motions were passed through this House, they would then respect those motions. We now suddenly see this distinction being made by Government spokespeople, not always named, who say that some motions are more equal than others.”
“Is my right hon. and learned Friend as astonished as I am that we have a Prime Minister and Government who are willing to take this reckless gamble with the future prosperity of our country, just to keep their rotten party together?”
“She has decided that she has to deliver Brexit with Conservative and DUP votes, and nothing else, to keep her party together and avoid a split. This has pushed her to a harder and more damaging conclusion than she might have reached if she had reached out, and it will do our country more damage. By her choices, the Prime Minister has further divided the country. She has not sought unity, and we are all paying the price. Unity does not consist merely of being forced to agree with her dubious, partisan choices and her definition of what Brexit should be, which are reckless in the extreme.”
“The fact is that the Prime Minister, from the beginning, has chosen to put the interests of keeping the Conservative party together over the national interest. She chose, because she had decided to kow-tow to the Brextremists in her own party, a hard Brexit to get through her own party conference, without even discussing it with her own Cabinet. She set the hard red lines—out of the single market; out of the customs union—that created the problems with the Irish backstop. From the beginning, she made no attempt to forge a consensus across party lines or, indeed, across the country to define what Brexit would be so that it could be delivered in a consensual way rather than a way that has exacerbated disunity and further divided this nation.”
“The Prime Minister’s own personal approach to Brexit has created what 40 former ambassadors have today rightly called a “national crisis” that she is presiding over. In their serious and important speeches, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie), my right hon. Friends the Members for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), and the right hon. Members for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) and for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman) have risen to the occasion of the crisis that is now facing us. I only wish that the Secretary of State could have risen to it as well.”
“Her and her party will never be forgiven for the damage that she is causing.”
“The Prime Minister is deeply reckless, and she has made a deeply reckless decision to play a hugely damaging game of brinkmanship with her own party by threatening the entire country with no deal. We have heard in the powerful speeches so far the real damage that that is doing to our country, trashing our international reputation abroad and doing irreparable damage to our standing in the world. Going to the brink in pursuit of this tactic is reckless with our economic prosperity and reckless with our political stability. Jobs are being lost now. Investment opportunities are being lost now. Growth is being sacrificed now. The Prime Minister has allowed the Tory Eurosceptic virus to infect the entire body politic. We are all ill with it; we are being weakened with it.”
“It is the letter, not the spirit, of our constitution and our law that is now apparently more important. We will rue the day we went down this dangerous path. All agreements are intra-Conservative ones. The Chequers agreement was with the Cabinet, and that did not last the weekend. The ludicrously named Malthouse compromise has already been ruled out by the EU. The alternative arrangements working group, funded by civil service support, is all about trying to get the rabble of the ERG to agree with the rest of the Conservative party, so that the Prime Minister can move forward. It is all to kick the can down the road and let her stay in office another week.”
“Today’s motion only exists because she was defeated in an attempt to shut down Parliament’s say in Brexit, and yet the Government are fulfilling the terms of that vote by holding this debate according to the letter, not the spirit, of the defeat they suffered. They routinely ignore votes in Parliament. Opposition days have simply disappeared, and they do not deign to vote in Divisions that the Opposition secure anyway, much less take any notice of the result. We are seeing the phrase “non-binding on the Government” increasingly applied, which is why I made the point of order before the debate. This development would have been unthinkable when I came into the House. The unwritten rules about our constitution are beginning to be ignored. Political gravity, which was always thought to be something that everybody respected, is being ignored.”
“In my view, it is actually beginning to bring democracy itself into disrepute. She flirts with authoritarianism and division, and invites the betrayal narratives that increase anger even more, so she is being reckless with our political stability. The Prime Minister has ignored Parliament in the way in which she has gone about delivering Brexit. She allowed her attack dogs to attack judges who pointed out that in fact Parliament needed to have a say about the triggering of article 50 in the first place. Indeed, the Prime Minister has allowed her Government to be found in contempt of Parliament.”
“Not to my surprise, I find myself agreeing with the observations of the right hon. Lady. The only national poll that the Prime Minister talks about these days is the referendum. Somehow she never refers to the 2017 election in which her party lost its mandate for a hard Brexit. The Prime Minister’s response to the result of that vote in 2017 and the loss of her majority surely ought to have been to go for a softer, more consensual Brexit that would have kept us in the customs union and avoided all these problems. But instead we have a Prime Minister who characterises disagreement with her own particular partisan choices on Brexit as if it is a betrayal of democracy. She has used those words, and that has further exacerbated the anger that we have in this country.”
“Will the Minister explain why the Government initially thought that the regulations should be subject to the negative procedure and not debated at all? We are obviously pleased that the Government changed their mind when the European Statutory Instruments Committee asked for the change.”
“Can the Minister explain to the Committee why the Government felt it necessary to make some of these changes retrospective and bring them into being before we have left the European Union, even though these SIs are meant to be a series of so-called no-deal SIs?”
“I thank the Minister for giving way again. Some of the provisions in these statutory instruments actually came into force on 1 December 2018. Why is that?”
“Some provisions in the regulations that are scheduled to come into force came into force at the beginning of last December. Will the Minister explain why it was felt necessary to bring them into force well ahead of our leaving the European Union and then apply them retrospectively, which is not a good principle of law?”
“It is true that the House of Lords spotted that the regulations would better fit the affirmative procedure but, to cheer up the hon. Gentleman, so did the European Statutory Instruments Committee of the House of Commons, of which I am a member, when we had a look at the regulations. We also suggested to the Government that the regulations are not minor and should certainly be subject to fuller debate.”
“Labour Members continue to look very closely, with a great deal of scepticism, at what is actually happening here, and whether there will be another attempt further to ratchet down the rights that people enjoy in our labour market.”
“Many Conservative Members have said that, somehow, there will be freedom when we leave the European Union, but I could be forgiven for thinking that that will inaugurate a race to the bottom on rights. There will be competition in how exploitative we can be to those who work in what is already—let me put it this way—a very flexible economy, in which many people now struggle even to achieve basic pay, conditions, pension entitlement, sick pay, holiday pay and the rest of it. We will look at the colour of the legislation, but I note that the Minister initially tried to get these statutory instruments through without even having a debate.”
“It is very hard, looking at these transitions of EU regulations into the UK statute book, to take the reassurance of anyone from a Government with such a record that we can rely on the blandishments they might issue on the Floor of the House. We want to see proper law, proper debates and proper employment rights. We also wish to see an enhanced capacity for those organisations to allow workers to access their rights, thereby making those rights a reality. So we come again to the Government’s record in that respect. The Trade Union Act 2016 made it virtually impossible for trade unions to operate without being caused enormous organisational problems and expense, which is a particularly vindictive approach to organisations that were created to ensure that workers can access their rights.”
“They effectively dismantled what was left of the employment tribunal system by starving it of resources, so waiting lists were massively long and the only people who could really afford to get their statutory rights enforced at all were trade unions members who could afford to wait for a very long time and those who could risk their own money simply to try to get their basic rights enforced in the UK. Of course, the Government also introduced the Beecroft report, which basically said that all maternity rights, and most employment rights, are a burden on business and ought to be abolished, and that everyone should fend for themselves.”
“Again, the Government have stood by and done absolutely nothing to protect those rights. They have made clucking noises about it and released the odd press release about how they are very concerned, but they have not done anything to make those rights accessible and available. In fact, the coalition Government introduced employment tribunal fees, which effectively made it impossible for those with issues to enforce the rights they thought they had under UK law.”
“We know from experience that this Government have done little in the nearly nine years they have been in existence to aid and assist those who work in the gig economy. That has been left to unions such as the GMB, which has pursued Hermes through the courts to get those who work there the employment rights they should have been granted at the outset. We know that other unions are pursuing employers such as Pimlico Plumbers and various other non-gig employers that are attempting to say that they do not have anyone working directly for them. Somehow all those people are self-employed and therefore have to pay for their own pensions and holiday pay. They do not get any sick pay or any other access to the basic protections we would expect every worker in the UK to get as a matter of common decency.”
“Why have they decided to repeal? Why have they decided to tweak in other ways, such as by saying “TUPE-like”, rather than just cutting and pasting existing requirements and protections into UK law? I am alarmed that the Government felt they could bring forward this legislation without the Minister coming here to give us a lot more information about the Government’s approach. It is about not only putting the same rights into UK law, but saying a bit about the loss of updating rights for the future. What, for example, is the Government’s intention, as the hon. Member for Glasgow South West has noted, on shadowing future rights that the EU may decide to grant its citizens, particularly in the gig economy?”
“The Committee also felt there is a policy vacuum in what will replace the powers being taken away. Section 79(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 is about the parental leave framework, and it will be repealed. Section 19(4) of the Employment Relations Act 1999 is about part-time work, and that will be repealed. Section 45(4) of the Employment Act 2002 is about conditions of employment, framework agreements on fixed-term work and the application of terms and conditions of employment and matters that arise because of the UK’s obligations under that particular EU directive. That will be repealed. Section 42(5) of the Employment Relations Act 2004, which has provisions about information and consultation, will be repealed. The Government could have done other things. They could have tweaked rather than repealed all those things.”
“A little later, I will outline some things that it would be helpful for the Minister to clarify in her response. Let us look at what these two sets of statutory instruments do. The first is for Northern Ireland, which of course does not have a functioning Executive at the moment, and therefore legislation is effectively being made for it without its direct say-so. The second set applies to the rest of the country: England, Wales and Scotland. The European Statutory Instruments Committee noted that the regulations amend four employment Acts to remove the power of the Secretary of State to make secondary legislation implementing EU employment directives. That is good, one might think, but that is four employment Acts changed by this collection of legislation.”
“It is a joy to see you in the Chair, Mr Evans. I begin by thanking the Minister for agreeing with the recommendation of both the House of Lords and the European Statutory Instruments Committee, which considered this collection of eight different measures and asked the Government to think again about using the negative procedure. If the Government had their way, there would have been no debate whatsoever about any of these important matters. The Minister told the Committee that these are just technical amendments, that there is nothing to see here and that we should all be happy not to be bothered by a series of tiny law changes. However, those of us who have been in the House a long time and know all about the general approach of the Conservative party to workers’ rights legislation want to check it out anyway.”
“I am glad to have provoked the hon. Gentleman to get to his feet and make that fairly fantastical claim, when 60% of people in poverty are actually in work, and when we have seen a huge increase in the number of people on zero-hours contracts, or on contracts so flexible that they cannot put food on the table at the end of the week.”
“Absolutely. We all remember the horror with which the Thatcherites perceived the appearance of Monsieur Delors at the Trades Union Congress, when he actually said that there was a social justice aspect to the European Union and that, of course, if there is a free market in the EU, there also has to be cross-border workers’ rights. Anyone who looks at the record will know exactly what to expect from the deregulators who form the core of the Brextremist Members of the Government party. They are positively salivating at the chance to cut further people’s entitlements in the labour market. They have always hated the idea that there was a floor below which they could not take workers’ rights, even when they were in government.”
“The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting comment. He looks at countries such as Spain, which has had a particularly difficult time with youth employment, and southern countries, but does not mention Germany or Sweden or any of the other places— [ Interruption. ] Let me finish the sentence. He does not remember any of the other places where there is a much less exploitative approach to skills, training, work and opportunities, and where they manage to create a much more productive economy, with a much happier workforce, which does not feel that it is being exploited.”
“Thank you, Mr Evans, and I am more than happy to abide by the obvious correctness of your ruling. I will merely say in passing that the issue is about taking away workers’ employment rights and making them harder to access and easier to exploit, which suggests that the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay takes a very different view from Labour Members of what represents a good productive workforce. A proper look at the evidence indicates as much.”
“However, I have to say that I think it quite right for the Opposition to vote against the draft regulations until we see much more evidence that the Government will deliver what they say they want to deliver, and that they will act. To date, they have simply talked.”
“If we are to agree to instruments such as the draft regulations, we will need much better suggestions from the Minister than, “Trust me.” We want much more evidence that there will be no loss to updating rights and that, as the TUC suggests, further rights agreed by the European Union will be more than matched in this country. We also need to know much more—I hope the Minister will cover this in her reply—about why it was thought acceptable for some pieces of legislation to be debated retrospectively after coming into being. I hope that the Minister’s reply will give us some satisfaction that we can trust in, so that we can move forward.”
“The Minister asks us to trust her—and trust the Prime Minister’s warm words but complete lack of action—that the Government do not wish to go below that floor, yet many of the Brextremists in the Conservative party have openly indicated otherwise. The Beecroft report would have crashed through the floor into the basement and further down. We know about the treatment of trade unions and organisations whose raison d’être is to protect workers. The lack of legislation or progress on any new forms of employment is simply another indication that, at the very least, the Government do not prioritise this area, but I suspect that the situation is worse than that.”
“Mr Evans, you know me very well and you know that I am never tempted at all to get away from being in order, which I take extremely seriously. I have a couple of other points. We have to remember that for slightly more than 40 years the UK, as a member of the European Union, has seen progress in and directives on employment law, as well as protections for a range of rights, including health and safety, equality, equal treatment and anti-discrimination. Those protections have been considered a floor below which no Government of this country have been able to go, despite the wishes of certain current Government Members.”
“Last month, the Secretary of State came to the House waxing lyrical about his support for start-up businesses, meaning Seaborne Freight. Is he not even remotely embarrassed that the project has fallen to pieces despite Government support? Will he not at least say sorry to the House for the mess that he has made?”
“The right hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that the increases he is talking about will lead to better crime-fighting results, but he is denying that the cuts that led to 1,000 fewer officers in the Merseyside police force have affected the rise in crime. Will he now answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey)? There is actually a link between police funding and crime levels, and he should come clean about it. The right hon. Gentleman cannot claim that if money is going up, crime rates will get better, but deny there is a link the other way around.”