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 64 of 119.
“I rise to support the motion tabled by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), and I congratulate him on his successful application for this debate. Debates under Standing Order No. 24 are relatively rare and take place only in exceptional circumstances when you permit, Mr Speaker. That we are having this debate at all speaks volumes about the reckless and shoddy way that the Government have chosen to pursue their proposals on what they like to call English votes for English laws. Their partisan, self-serving solution to this question is highly controversial and divisive, and their method of introducing it is a constitutional outrage. I hope that even at this late stage they will see sense and think again.”
“We had the guts to come forward with proper legislation and a referendum before any of the Assemblies were put in place. If only the Conservative party had even considered doing that.”
“In a minute. I am trying to respond to the point that has been put to me. If the hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me a sentence or two, I promise I will give way. My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) is right: devolution is a desirable process but it must be done properly if it is not to create resentment. I give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman who is eager, as always.”
“The devolution settlements for Wales and Scotland took time to develop and evolve, and—as I was in the middle of saying—there are clearly issues for England that we now need to consider. We consider that that issue should be properly dealt with as part of a constitutional convention that should be charged with examining how the United Kingdom is governed, in a much more profound and holistic way than the reckless and partisan fiasco with which we are currently presented. Instead, we have a Prime Minister who chose to exploit the bitterness and division created after the Scottish referendum for his own narrow electoral advantage, rather than attempt to heal the wounds that had opened up. We now have a Government who seem more interested in pursuing a partisan procedural fix than in showing any intention of keeping our Union together.”
“We are in a complex position, and the hon. Gentleman is right to say that Northern Ireland has its own particular issues that are mixed up with the peace process. We think that we need a constitutional convention to consider where we are in the round and across the piece—including the ever-expanding House of Lords, which grows larger and larger every year, even as the Government want to cut the number of elected Members of Parliament. All that suggests that time is right for us to consider a constitutional convention.”
“My hon. Friend is right. We can do a range of things to devolve power and ensure that any resentment about the way we are governed, of which in this anti-politics era there is much, is properly responded to by a constitutional convention that reaches out—”
“I am in the middle of a sentence. Let me just finish answering my hon. Friend, then I will be more than happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman. Before I was so graciously interrupted, I was saying that it feels right this time—there has been so much change and so many more demands for devolution—to consider the issue as a whole and involve civil society. We should have a proper debate on that, and we certainly do not want to be involved with these procedural fixes.”
“We are due to debate the details of the proposals on 15 July, but from the earlier confusion it is unclear quite how many of the draft Standing Orders the procedures of the House will allow us to address in that debate.”
“I do not think the proposed remedy is simple; I think it is an abuse of process. These changes are controversial and complex and have profound implications for our constitution and for the Union. As such, they ought to be subject to proper scrutiny and consultation, but instead the Government hope to sneak them into place just before the summer recess, in one single debate and in only one Chamber of our Parliament. They have chosen to use a procedural fix in an attempt to bring about profound constitutional change. Next week, they will seek to amend the Standing Orders of the Commons to introduce their partisan version of what they have chosen to call English votes for English laws, virtually without any parliamentary oversight and completely without the possibility of any judicial oversight.”
“I would not have given way to the right hon. Gentleman had I realised that he has only just come into the Chamber and has missed the rest of the debate. The answer to his question was given earlier when he was not attending.”
“I have not, but I might consider it. The hon. Gentleman has taken the assurances, or non-assurances, I got from my earlier question a bit too much to heart. Twenty-two pages of changes to Standing Orders will be up for consideration. Our normal procedures allow a vote on only one or two amendments. If the Government were to move a motion that allowed many, many more amendments to be voted on at the moment of interruption at the end of the debate, we might be in a position to have more of an effect. Currently, it is a fait accompli.”
“The hon. Gentleman pursues his Northern Irish interests in his usual way. Many such issues need to be looked at very carefully, which is why we advocate a constitutional convention, so that we can look at the thing in the round and in balance, and so that we can make proper decisions that weigh and balance with one another, rather than changing something not realising that there are unintended consequences.”
“I congratulate the hon. Gentleman. He is assiduous in his attendance and I could never accuse him of not being here from the beginning of a debate. The use of Standing Orders to make that change is a terrible precedent.”
“I tried to ask the Leader of the House that question during his statement last week, but answer came there none. I agree with my hon. Friend’s interpretation.”
“They also extend the application of the rules to Finance Bills and create the extraordinary probability that a measure passed by a majority in both Houses can be vetoed by a minority. It is possible to concoct a procedural fix to introduce major constitutional change, as the Government have done, but my contention is that it is not wise to do so. In fact, it is a constitutional outrage.”
“I have no knowledge of whether that is the case. However, I am sure we will hear from the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker). He can give us any answers, because he was there at the time. Today’s debate is about process rather than content, so I will confine myself to observations of the process the Government have chosen to use. I note in passing that the Government have gone much further on English votes for English laws than the McKay commission suggested would be wise. They have not explained why they have chosen to do so, as my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) has just observed. The McKay report contained serious warnings about the effect of creating an English veto, a double majority and two classes of MPs. The Government’s proposals ride roughshod over those warnings and instigate all three.”
“The proposals for a double majority, as far as I understand them, are extremely worrying. They are likely to act as a dampener on the activities of the House of Lords as a revising Chamber. That is part of the debate we must have next week. Today I want to talk about the process—how the Government have decided to make the change.”
“Under the Government’s proposals, the introduction of English votes for English laws would not be.”
“All major constitutional changes, from the supremacy of the Commons in the Parliament Acts through to our membership of the European Union and the devolution process, have been introduced by Acts of Parliament—the Parliament Act 1911, the Parliament Act 1949, the European Communities Act 1972, the Human Rights Act 1998, the Government of Wales Act 1998, the Scotland Act 1998 and the Greater London Authority Act 1999. Each of those Acts was properly scrutinised over a period of time, with days of debates in both Houses and the proper consideration of amendments. Many were preceded by Green Papers, White Papers and a thorough debate in the country. Some could only be commenced after a referendum had been won. All those measures are subject to interpretation in the courts.”
“It is terribly kind of the hon. Gentleman to give us that assurance, but we need to base changes to our constitution on more than that. The process the Government have chosen to use to create EVEL goes against every precedent. Substantial constitutional changes should be implemented by Acts of Parliament and examined in both Houses. They should not be rushed through in changes to Standing Orders. Changes to Commons Standing Orders cannot be challenged in the courts because of article 9 of the Bill of Rights, nor can they be subject to proper, open scrutiny in both Houses of Parliament. They are clearly not suitable for introducing a de facto English Parliament within the existing Union Parliament, as the Government have proposed.”
“The right hon. and learned Gentleman has perhaps not read the manifesto on which Labour fought the election, but it said we wanted a constitutional convention. The time is right to have a much closer and more holistic look at what is happening in the House of Lords and in the devolved Parliaments to see where we have ended up. That is our current policy. No previous changes to Standing Orders have contained such substantial constitutional change. I have already dealt with why this is a lamentable precedent.”
“They have merely suggested that it should have a review into the new arrangements, but only after they have already been implemented. It is usual for changes to procedures of the House to be approved by free votes, as they are House business not Government business. This was the case with House of Lords Reform; changes to the legislative process, including the introduction of public evidence for Committees; the programming of Bills; and the election of the Speaker. The EVEL proposals, however, are Government business and they are especially partisan because of their explicit inclusion in the Conservative manifesto.”
“I have already given way to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I want to get on, because many people wish to speak. Previous changes to Standing Orders, which were nowhere near as radical as these, were introduced initially on a temporary basis, often at the suggestion of the Procedure Committee, and tested out before either being abandoned or made permanent. Many innovative changes to Standing Orders have been introduced on a temporary basis initially. For example, the changes introduced by the previous Labour Government allowing for debates in Westminster Hall were temporary and subject to renewal. So too were the changes introducing the programming of legislation and deferred Divisions. Yet the Government have not even asked the Procedure Committee to report on the changes it has sprung on the House.”
“I believe this is the real driver behind the changes, and it makes the outrageous procedural fix, of using Standing Orders rather than legislation to produce the change, even more unacceptable. I hope that even at this late hour the Government will think again. The unintended consequences of what they are doing could be very large indeed and the precedents they are setting are dire.”
“I am arguing that this is the wrong way to do this kind of change. The procedures and Standing Orders of the House should be House business. They should not be infected by Conservative or Labour Whips. It is the Government who have chosen to make these changes in this way. The right hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of himself. We are now to believe that the Government should mandate changes to the Standing Orders of the Commons as set out in their manifesto and force them through using a whipped vote. This is a very, very sad day. The Government’s changes will turn their slim majority of 12 into over three figures if both Scottish and Welsh MPs are to be prevented from voting.”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. We have today seen the Government abstain from voting on the process of introducing English votes for English laws because they knew they had lost the argument. What more can we do to prevent the Government from railroading these controversial changes through the House in one single day of debate? They have not even bothered to vote to support the process that they decided to implement.”
“Before the 2010 election, in a moment of green enthusiasm, the Prime Minister bought a plot of land on the proposed site of the third runway and planted a tree on it. I can update the House that, just like his promise to lead the greenest Government ever, it has now withered and died.”
“If to govern is to choose, it is pretty clear that this Prime Minister is not governing: on airport expansion, we have a Prime Minister who is more concerned to put his party interest above the economic interests of the country; when it comes to negotiating in Europe, we see a Prime Minister pushed about by his Eurosceptic Back Benchers rather than acting in the best interests of his country; and when it comes to devolution and the important issue of English votes for English laws, this Prime Minister thinks only about how to manufacture a much larger majority for himself than the 12 he managed at the recent general election. Finally, I can update the House on one of the Prime Minister’s other key interests—something I gather he has not declared to the House.”
“The Prime Minister responded with his usual decisiveness; he dithered. He set up the airports commission to report back after the general election to hold his last Government together; now he is apparently allowing Tory MPs a free vote to keep this one together. After spending £20 million on this independent, expert advice, can the Leader of the House explain why even after the report’s publication the Prime Minister still cannot decide? Is it because before 2010 he told a public meeting in Richmond, “No ifs, no buts, no third runway at Heathrow”?”
“He has pulled the plug himself, scrapping £2 billion of improvements on rail routes to the north that he had been posing in front of just weeks before. They have also paused the midland main line upgrade and their pledge to electrify the TransPennine route, potentially wasting hundreds of millions of pounds in the process. In fact, the only line that is now being electrified as far as I can see is the one that runs past the Prime Minister’s house. Can the Leader of the House tell us why the Government cynically waited until after the election to reveal that their plans had been derailed, and may we have a debate on the fiasco of this Government’s northern powerhouse project, which seems to be experiencing a Tory power cut? Yesterday saw the publication of the Davies commission’s report on airport expansion.”
“This week the TransPennine Express revealed that, as well mobile phones, umbrellas, and even a bag of haggis, a 6-foot inflatable dinosaur was left on one of its trains. When it comes to the TransPennine Express, it seems the inflatable dinosaur is not the only thing that is full of hot air. In their manifesto the Tories promised to rebalance the economy and build what they called a “northern powerhouse”. The Chancellor and the Transport Secretary then donned the highest of high-vis jackets and hard hats as they did a national photo-op tour of every project they claimed would benefit from their largesse. For good measure the Chancellor then posted a scaremongering tweet claiming Labour would cancel them. But just two months on, his northern powerhouse has become a northern power cut.”
“After failing to deliver his promise to eliminate the deficit in the last Parliament, he now plans extreme spending cuts that will hit the poorest third of families hardest. According to experts, his planned cuts to social security will lead to a sharp rise in child poverty, so the Work and Pensions Secretary has decided to help him out by announcing that child poverty will no longer be defined by this Government as having too little money, and to avoid any potential for further embarrassment the Child Poverty Act 2010 is to be repealed just as the cuts bite. So may we have a debate in Government time on what on earth the Prime Minister might have meant when he led Tory MPs into the Lobby to support the Child Poverty Act before the 2010 election?”
“I thank the Leader of the House for announcing next week’s business. I commiserate with the England women’s football team, who lost their World cup semi-final in the cruellest fashion last night after an heroic campaign. Does the Leader of the House agree that they did the country proud and that they have proved the worth of women’s sport, which should finally be getting more resources and coverage? I also congratulate all hon. and right hon. Members who have been elected to Select Committees. They do an important job in the House scrutinising the actions of the Government and I look forward to them commencing this crucial work soon. Next week the House will hear the Chancellor’s second Budget in four months as he attempts to clear up the mess he inherited—from himself.”
“The Leader of the House is playing with fire. Why is he being so reckless? It is hard not to conclude that the proposals are not an attempt to address the West Lothian question, but rather a cynical attempt by a Government with an overall majority of just 12 to use procedural trickery to manufacture themselves a very much larger one.”
“How does that square with the report’s recommendation that “after due provision has been made for” England-only “views…to be heard and taken into account, the UK majority should prevail, not least…to retain the UK Government’s accountability at election time for decision-making during its time in office”? Can the Leader of the House explain how his plans fulfil the very strong view expressed in the McKay report that we need to address feelings in England without provoking an adverse reaction outside England? Judging by the reaction in the Chamber today, he has certainly failed that test. The proposals risk the Union rather than save it. As a self-proclaimed Unionist, why is the Leader of the House in such a rush to enact this partisan proposal that he has not even bothered to consult on, not least with the Procedure Committee?”
“The decision to include an unprecedented double majority requirement for some Lords amendments—English MPs will get two votes and other MPs will get one—goes much further than the McKay report, which suggested a double count but no English veto. Is it not ironic that, just as the Labour party moves to one person, one vote for its leadership election, the Tory party decides to force the House to adopt multiple votes, but only for some MPs? Perhaps the Leader of the House is much more worried than he is letting on about losing important votes in the Lords. Will the Leader of the House explain how his proposals avoid creating two classes of MPs in the House, which McKay cautioned strongly against?”
“An initial impression points to plenty of opportunities for procedural chaos, and I have some early observations, questions and profound worries. The Leader of the House appears to have gone out of his way to ignore both the warnings and the recommendations of the McKay report, which his Government commissioned. Why has he done that? The creation of a veto rather than a voice for English MPs on England-only Bills, and on parts of other Bills, statements and statutory instruments, appears to go much further than the McKay commission envisaged in its 2013 report. Again, why has he decided to do that?”
“I am disappointed but not surprised that the Government have made no such attempt, and that they intend to rush the procedural changes through the House in the next two weeks, in a time-limited debate to change our Standing Orders. That is no way to make profound constitutional change. It is an outrage that the Government believe it is. The Opposition consider that the issue should have been properly dealt with as part of a constitutional convention to examine how our country is governed in a much more profound and holistic way than the rushed and partisan changes the right hon. Gentleman has cobbled together and put before us today. The proposals are complex and much more time will be needed to interrogate their effects, and the effect they will have in practice on our procedures in the House.”
“I thank the Leader of the House for giving me, earlier this morning, advance sight of his statement and the draft procedural amendments he proposes. The Leader of the House has announced in his statement the Government’s intention to rush ahead with controversial and complex changes to the procedures of this House, in an effort to ensure provision of what he likes to call English votes for English laws. The Official Opposition recognise that, in the light of the ongoing deepening of devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, it is important for the views of English MPs to be expressed clearly on English matters, but we believe such changes would best be achieved by proper consultation and an attempt to reach cross-party agreement.”
“Only the Liberal Democrats could manage to have a split when they have eight MPs. This week the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) had to apologise after his activists were caught discrediting his rival by calling round the party’s entire membership, which cannot have taken very long, although he earned the endorsement of boxer Frank Bruno, which means that at least he has one big hitter.”
“Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) ceased being Chief Whip. I would be missing him, if he had ever bothered turning up, so I thought I would take a look at what he has been up to in the Ministry of Justice. After a period of uncharacteristic silence, he has suddenly sprung to life and issued a detailed guide on grammar for his civil servants. His rules include never using the word “impact” and avoiding “anything too pompous”. I wonder who on earth he has in mind, Mr Speaker. Over at his old Department, I notice that the Secretary of State for Education has also been tackling the big issues. She has appointed a new low level bad behaviour tsar, presumably to help deal with Tory Eurosceptics. Finally, I feel compelled to mention the developing drama in the Liberal Democrat leadership race.”
“Just last year, they promised more disabled people would be in work. Now we know that fewer than one in 10 disabled people on the Work programme have actually found a job. Before the election, the Government claimed they had exceeded their target for selling off Government land for house building, but now we know that they were counting land sold off from 1997. On Monday, the Prime Minister claimed he had saved £1.2 billion through the troubled families programme, but within minutes the National Institute of Economic and Social Research had dismissed his comments as “pure, unadulterated fiction”, so may we have a debate in Government time on the Tory parallel universe where a person can say something and do the complete opposite, and hope nobody will notice? It is three months since the right hon.”
“His Back Benchers have got him on the run, and his tour of European capitals has been an object lesson in how to lose friends and alienate people. One Slovak official said: “He is not the brightest spark in terms of getting what he wants…His approach is making him irrelevant”. But not to worry: the Prime Minister has come up with a cunning plan. Instead of successful renegotiation, he has apparently decided to rebrand our membership of the EU by calling us associate members. Given that the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) has indicated that Eurosceptics, such as the Leader of the House, will resign before the referendum, perhaps the Prime Minister should consider offering his Cabinet associate membership to hold his Government together. This Government really do say one thing and do another.”
“As I dust off my pink Stetson, ready to join the LGBT community at Pride, does the Leader of the House agree that we need to redouble our efforts to root out prejudice and discrimination at home and abroad? Does he agree that the Foreign Secretary’s decision to ban the Pride flag from being flown at UK embassies around the world sends exactly the wrong signal? Later today, EU leaders will meet in Brussels. The Prime Minister has briefed that the meeting is all about his renegotiation, but I read this morning that one senior EU diplomat has said that discussion on the subject would be “cursory”, so I thought I would take a look at the agenda. I can see items on migration, terrorism, jobs, growth and competitiveness. Squeezed in just before the end, above the adoption of the minutes of the last meeting, is our Prime Minister.”
“May I associate myself with the Leader of the House’s commiserations and good thoughts for those caught up in the awful events in the Parliament in Kabul? There is just over a year and a half until the BBC’s charter runs out, but the Government still have not set out a timetable or plan for its renewal. After the Prime Minister’s election threat to close down the BBC, and given that the last charter renewal process began three years before the charter expired, could the Leader of the House say when and how the House will be kept informed of progress on this important issue? On Tuesday, the Equality and Human Rights Commission revealed that a staggering 88% of lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans people had experienced some form of hate crime, and 35,000 such cases go unreported every year.”
“I know that the Prime Minister could not tell us what Magna Carta actually meant when he appeared on “Letterman” three years ago, but he would be wise to pay attention to the lessons of history now. Magna Carta came about because the King fell foul of pushy, rebellious barons who would not accept his authority. After it was signed, the King ignored it and kept going back on his word. It took his death from a surfeit of peaches and the accession of a new young King to finally quieten the rebels. After the Chancellor’s impressive debut at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday, if I was the Prime Minister I would be worried, and I would certainly stay well away from any peaches.”
“Although some of its clauses, such as those on the return of Welsh hostages and the removal of fishing weirs from England, have been somewhat overtaken by events, this country’s commitment to basic rights and freedoms remains a proud part of our heritage and crucial to our future. As the nation celebrated at Runnymede, will the Leader of the House tell us why the Prime Minister chose to mark the anniversary by reaffirming his intention to scrap the Human Rights Act? Will he tell us why the Prime Minister has rejected the advice of his previous Attorney General, the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), who said that scrapping the Act will undermine human rights across Europe?”
“Finally, on Tuesday, after frantic whipping and a desperate letter from the Minister for Europe begging them not to rebel, no fewer than 27 Back Benchers, including five former Cabinet Ministers, voted against the Government. After that sorry spectacle, will the Leader of the House tell us whether the Government have already conceded our amendments on today’s amendment paper? May we have a debate on the complete chaos that has characterised the Government’s flagship Bill? I was thinking about watching the new film “Jurassic World”, but if I want to see a bunch of dinosaurs tear each other apart I might as well stay and watch his Back Benchers. This week we marked 800 years since the signing of Magna Carta and the origin of the rights we enjoy today.”
“Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Chancellor to come to the House and report on the outcome of the meeting of EU Finance Ministers in Luxembourg today? After last week’s breathtaking U-turn in the Bavarian Alps , the Prime Minister is now in full retreat on the European Union Referendum Bill. We have had complete confusion over the referendum date. First, the Prime Minister said it could coincide with next year’s elections, but this week he was forced to back down at the last minute because he knew he had lost his majority. We still do not know whether Eurosceptic Cabinet Ministers will be able to campaign for an out vote—something I believe the Leader of the House will want an answer to, at least some time soon.”
“Will the Leader of the House tell us how he will ensure that the whole House has a chance to discuss and debate the way forward? I note that once again there is no reference to English votes for English laws in the future business, but rumours continue to abound that we will be discussing Government plans as early as next week, so can the Leader of the House assure me that we will have adequate time to discuss and debate these important proposals, and will he tell us when that is likely to be? The Greek debt crisis poses a serious threat to Europe’s economy, including that of the UK. With the Greek central bank now warning of a “painful” road ahead and no sign of a solution, what contingency plans exist to protect the UK economy from the effects of a Greek exit from the eurozone?”