Angela Eagle MP: speeches

Speeches

• 29 Jun 2026 · Cabinet Office · Hansard source

  More

  Has he just come in?

• 29 Jun 2026 · Cabinet Office · Hansard source

  More

  As always, the right hon. Gentleman has asked a very important question. I think the key thing to understand is that this work is ongoing, and that there will be co-operation between the current Prime Minister and—I do not want to get ahead of what Labour party members might decide to do—whoever the next Prime Minister will be. I hope that gives the right hon. Gentleman some assurance. Beyond defence, we will identify, protect and cultivate other sovereign capabilities, such as foundational industries and frontier technologies, that are critical to our industrial base and national competitiveness. I was interested by what my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington said in this connection. We are in close contact and collaboration with states such as Canada to learn as much as we can about how they do resilience, although I might gently suggest that the Canadian landmass is slightly different from the UK landmass when it comes to thinking of organising a defence for it, and slightly different approaches will clearly have to be taken, given the geographical realities. However, there is much on which we can co-operate.

• 25 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I assure the House that, given the Department I was in previously, I am able to join up the “food security is national security” mantra in a stronger way than has perhaps happened. The Government’s land use framework, which was published earlier in the year, demonstrates how we can ensure through multiple land use that we can build the homes we need and grow the food we need. The farming road map published yesterday demonstrates a plan for growth for UK primary production.

• 25 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is quite right to identify the threats from hostile foreign actors that we currently face, which evolve and rapidly change. I can assure her that we will continue not only to track those threats, but to give advice and information that helps businesses, communities and individuals to deal with them.

• 25 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  SMEs, individuals and communities should look at the national advice that is published and check on gov.uk/prepare, so that they can take the advice. It is simple and it is up there.

• 25 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  We always assess security risks on a case-by-case basis, and we do not discuss what they are in public.

• 25 Jun 2026 · Natural Disasters: Community Resilience · Hansard source

  More

  I recognise that the hon. Gentleman’s constituents have concerns, as do the constituents of other Cornish Members of Parliament who have talked to me. Hundreds were left without telecom services for days after Storm Goretti, which is clearly unacceptable. It is important that we work with telecoms operators and power suppliers to strengthen comms resilience across Cornwall. I will take a close look at that.

• 25 Jun 2026 · Natural Disasters: Community Resilience · Hansard source

  More

  The overnight news of the earthquake in Venezuela, which has caused a lot of damage, is very concerning. I know that my colleagues in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office stand ready, as do we, to help with any recovery that the people of Venezuela may need, particularly in terms of rescue at this stage.

• 25 Jun 2026 · Natural Disasters: Community Resilience · Hansard source

  More

  Through our resilience action plan, we are driving a whole-of-society approach to resilience, which seeks to integrate the voluntary, community and faith sectors into planning and strengthening the resilience of our critical national infrastructure. The Government are also committed to raising public awareness, with practical advice through gov.uk/prepare.

• 25 Jun 2026 · National Resilience Planning · Hansard source

  More

  We are driving a step change in national resilience through our resilience action plan. Central to that is our national security risk assessment, which embeds clear accountability for lead Government Departments across all risks. We are further enhancing this co-ordination by publishing updated guidance this year. That will ensure that every Department is fully equipped to deliver its responsibilities and works seamlessly across the resilience cycle to keep the country safe.

• 25 Jun 2026 · National Resilience Planning · Hansard source

  More

  I know that the extreme heat has extended even to Harlow, which has surprised some people; it indicates the nature of the threat. We have had a red alert. I will repeat the advice to drink plenty of fluids, and those who are travelling should take a lot of water with them, and be sensible and careful in these conditions. Clearly, water safety is an important issue. The National Fire Chiefs Council has issued good advice about water safety. If you are too hot, jumping into a very cold body of water is not a good idea, tempting though it may seem.

• 25 Jun 2026 · National Resilience Planning · Hansard source

  More

  I will get back to the hon. Gentleman. I have to confess that I have not had my briefing on space yet.

• 25 Jun 2026 · National Resilience · Hansard source

  More

  We are delivering our resilience action plan to strengthen national resilience, and we are building a system in which Government, business and society work together to anticipate and mitigate the risks facing our country.

• 25 Jun 2026 · National Resilience · Hansard source

  More

  Dual-use infrastructure is an important part of how we do planning, and my hon. Friend is right that we have to be much smarter and more forward thinking than perhaps has been the case, knowing that we face a very volatile and rapidly changing series of threats ahead.

• 25 Jun 2026 · National Resilience · Hansard source

  More

  When I was first in government in 1997, I discovered that I was the Minister for Canals, which was a particularly enjoyable part of the brief, so I understand what the hon. Lady is saying. My previous Department, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, does a lot on this issue, so I will contact the Water Minister. We can liaise, and I will be in touch with the hon. Lady.

• 25 Jun 2026 · National Resilience · Hansard source

  More

  I certainly empathise and sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman’s loss. The loss of a parent in similar circumstances has been felt in many other households because of the toll taken by the legacy of asbestos on our public buildings and our buildings generally—not least this one. I take the point that he has made. We always need to be looking at how we can improve our response to mitigate the very real threat that the remaining asbestos in our buildings leaves people dealing with.

• 25 Jun 2026 · National Resilience · Hansard source

  More

  The national risk register includes the effects of climate change. Although the Government are working internationally on mitigation, it is also important that adaptation takes centre stage when the kinds of investment decisions my hon. Friend mentions are made. I assure her that the Government are across that.

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

  More

  I think that there are some necessary differences between a terrorist organisation and a state-influenced or state proxy organisation, which the differences between the Bill and the National Security Act—which deals with terrorism—seek to bring out. Jonathan Hall said that the Bill “does the job” in closing that loophole. He also told the House that he thought it would be harder to achieve the prosecutions for designated organisations than those for terrorist organisations. The Bill builds on a tried and tested series of measures in the National Security Act, and we have developed it closely with operational partners. It does the job. We do not believe that it is tougher to get appropriate prosecutions up and running in this context.

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

  More

  I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken in today’s Second Reading debate. We have had a very powerful and relevant debate, with a great deal of expertise in the Chamber from both sides of the House. State threats are overt or covert actions by foreign Governments that fall below the level of armed conflict, but go beyond legitimate diplomacy to harm UK interests. They present a persistent and evolving risk to the UK and our allies, and that evolution and the hybrid nature of the threats we face today has come across in all the many excellent contributions we have heard from Members on both sides of the House. There is cross-party recognition that the threats we are dealing with are increasingly complex, and rapidly changing and evolving. They manifest across a wide spectrum of activity, including interference in democratic processes, acquisition of sensitive information, threats to public safety and disruption of economic security. We all know—it has been mentioned by many hon. and right hon. Members—that certain states have the intent and capability to conduct such activity to advance their objectives. We have talked about Iran, Russia and China. Such activity is often opportunistic. It is adaptive, and it is increasingly integrated across multiple domains, combining physical, cyber, economic and international tools. Increasingly, as has been pointed out, it involves new and emerging tools such as AI, as well as TikTok, cyber, AI and a range of other things. In December 2024, the former Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley (Yvette Cooper), commissioned the independent reviewer of state threats legislation, Jonathan Hall KC, to conduct a review into the tools available in terrorism legislation to see how they might be applied to the problem of state threats. He proposed that there should be legislation to create a state threats power equivalent to that of proscription under the Terrorism Act 2000, and although the Bill does not deliver the recommendations of the entire Jonathan Hall report, it does deliver that proposal. To that extent, it is a narrow, not a comprehensive Bill. It is important that Members from all parts of the House understand that that is what the Bill does. Rather than trying to shoehorn everything else into this Bill, it is important that we understand the nature of the Bill and what it actually does. It strengthens the Government’s ability to disrupt hostile intelligence services and their proxies by adapting counter-terrorism tools to tackle state-based security threats to the UK. It seeks to close that loophole. It creates a new power for the Secretary of State to designate organisations involved in foreign power threat activity, modelled on the Terrorism Act 2000. It introduces three new criminal offences of supporting, assisting or obtaining benefits from designated bodies. The Bill will enable proxy organisations to be treated in practice like foreign intelligence services, making it easier to prosecute those acting on their behalf. It strengthens the overall national security framework so that the UK becomes a more difficult operating environment for foreign intelligence services and their state-linked proxies. Individuals acting for a designated body will feel the full force of our national security legislation and the potential accompanying prison sentences of up to 14 years. Designation will send a clear public signal to bodies and those prepared to assist them that their malign behaviour will not be tolerated in the UK. Our manifesto committed to adapt the approach used for dealing with terrorism to state-based security threats, and that is precisely what the Bill does. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) is a passionate responder at the Dispatch Box, and her interest in this area and her commitment to getting it right are clear. The Government have been working on this legislation since Jonathan Hall made his recommendation. The Prime Minister, in the light of the arson incidents that we saw in north London earlier this year, gave a firm commitment to legislate in a matter of weeks, and we are doing just that to close this loophole on state or proxy-based threats. To be clear, this legislation is no less robust than the Terrorism Act 2000. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said, Jonathan Hall said that using terror legislation is “shopping in the wrong department”. This Bill will ensure that we are shopping in the right department.

• 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.