Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill

Layla Moran Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 24th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Lady gives me a significant reputation to live up to. She is right, however, that some of the things that we have seen, not least with regard to the Ukraine war, have been the catalyst for much of this overdue legislation. We are keen to bring forward exactly the measures she refers to.

The Bill contains a very considerable package of measures to deliver on our ambition. It includes the largest reform of the UK’s company registration framework in 170 years. Crucially, it provides transparency, exactly as the hon. Lady says, and affords and enables scrutiny. There are significant penalties—indeed, criminal penalties—for those, both individuals and their advisers, who seek to avoid that scrutiny. It also provides significant new powers for law enforcement and the private sector to protect the UK from fraud, international money laundering, illicit Russian finance and terrorist financing.

It is for this reason that I want to record my sincere thanks to all the right hon. and hon. Members who served on the Public Bill Committee. We had very constructive, frank and open debate—which I think should be welcomed on both sides and from both different perspectives—and really diligent scrutiny of the Bill. Their work has very much helped us to ensure that this legislation does not fall short of its important aims, and indeed has been improved as a result.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

May I echo the voices of those saying how delightful it is to see the Minister at the Dispatch Box? I shall not say more than that.

On a similar matter, the Minister may be aware of the revelations this morning from openDemocracy about the UK Government helping the head of the Wagner group circumvent sanctions already imposed on it to sue a British journalist working for Bellingcat. Is he aware of this story, has an investigation been done into this story, and would he take this opportunity to condemn what would seem to be very egregious in that—how shall I put it—these are sanctions we have imposed, yet we are somehow not imposing them in practice? This is not right.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I think it would be wrong to make any representations on any particular case, but seeking to enable somebody to avoid sanctions is entirely unacceptable, clearly. I am sure that those allegations will be looked into very carefully. We should definitely make sure that those are properly reviewed before we come to any firm conclusions, but in essence I agree with the principle behind the hon. Member’s statement.

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Layla Moran Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 25th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

To state what is so obvious to my struggling constituents, we are in the middle of a cost of living and an economic crisis—a crisis made worse by this Conservative party’s cack-handed handling of the country’s finances and economy. I am talking not just about the past few days either, but about the decisions that the Conservatives have made in the sort of agreement that we struck with the EU following Brexit.

This Government have put up many barriers to trade over the past few years. They have created enough business uncertainty. We do not need any more of it, but that is what the Bill does. As others have said, I am amazed to see the Bill being brought forward—today of all days. It is indeed the brainchild—the baby—of the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg). Minutes after Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy questions this morning, he then resigned, so it was left in the capable hands of the Minister, the hon. Member for Watford (Dean Russell), who I guess in this case would be the nanny—but that would be appropriate, would it not?

This is also the first day of the Prime Minister’s new tenure. People say start as you mean to go on. Well, I am sorry, but this is a very, very bad start indeed. What the Minister has failed to fully answer is why the Government are introducing this Bill. Why do they have to introduce it when there are so many other things that we need to get done, post pandemic, to get out of this mess? Why this? Why are the Government taking forward legislation that will make life harder for businesses in my constituency and across the country? Why do they want to make it harder for them to trade with businesses in France, Germany and Spain? Every time we diverge in standards, businesses face more red tape to export into the EU. This legislation would mean divergence en masse. That is not a pragmatic way to approach trading ties with our largest trading partner.

Then there is the cliff edge. Why on earth do Ministers think this is wise? I think back to 2019—I can see many Members who were here then—because if there is one thing that can unite the House, it is that we do not like cliff edges in Parliament. They are corrosive, including incidentally to inward investment, because they are damaging to business. They create a fog of uncertainty and put undue pressure on Parliament. Indeed, Members have been wise to raise that point, in thoughtful contributions not just from the Opposition Benches but from the Government Benches. This cliff edge is entirely unnecessary and, let us face it, will probably not survive the Lords, and quite rightly. I urge the Government to think again.

The Prime Minister told us yesterday that the country faces a profound economic challenge. Actually, on that we agree—who doesn’t? Yet one of his first acts as Prime Minister was to bring in this Bill. If he was serious about putting the economy right, he would pull this Bill. He would act in the national interest and put businesses up and down the country first, but instead he has chosen to put his party first. This Prime Minister, who no one voted for, has decided on his first day in office to push ahead with a massive undemocratic power grab that tries to wrest control of scrutiny away from Parliament, preventing us from having any meaningful say on future changes, and with no clear steer on how exactly the Government are to achieve this mammoth task in the timeframe they have set themselves.

Incidentally—this bit is even worse—Ministers can choose to do nothing. They do not have to lift a finger, and the termination of these standards, regulations and rights becomes the default, and settled areas of law become uncertain and contested, as the Chair of the Justice Committee has rightly pointed out. I am sure that other Members’ inboxes will have been inundated, as mine has, with emails from constituents who are outraged at the whole suite of vital protections that could now be struck down by this Conservative Government —I dare say that the Prime Minister was right to say that trust is not there, because, boy, do they not trust this Government, and nor do I.

Environmental protection is top of my constituents’ list of concerns—I remind the Prime Minister that we are also in a climate crisis, as well as an economic one. The RSPB has described the potential revocation of environmental laws in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs policy space as “an attack on nature” and has expressed particular concern about the regulation of air and water quality, and the prevention of pollution. Ruth Chambers, a senior fellow at Greener UK, a coalition of conservation groups, has said that the Government are

“hurtling towards a deregulatory free-for-all where vital environmental protections are ripped up and public health is put at risk.”

The approach to employment law is the same, as others have said. A host of rights, such as holiday pay and agency workers’ rights, face being downgraded or eliminated. The Institute for Public Policy Research has said that the cliff edge would create

“extraordinary uncertainty for businesses and workers”,

and the same is true in many different areas: justice, data protection, protections for consumers, and a whole host of others.

It is clear that this Bill is simply not fit for purpose. It is a Tory vanity project, replaying and harking back to an old record, played in happier times, and designed, frankly, to keep their fanatical right from their door. All of this will, in return, result in chaos, confusion and yet more consternation for our constituents and all those businesses, which deserve so much better. It will therefore surprise no one to hear that I and the Liberal Democrats will act in the national interest tonight by opposing this reckless Bill.

Long Covid: Impact on the Workforce

Layla Moran Excerpts

Thursday 31st March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of long covid on the UK workforce.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing us to hold this updated debate on long covid. I also thank my co-sponsors, some of whom, I am sad to say, are at home ill with covid and very much wanted to be here today. Also the fact that the debate has moved weeks has not helped. For those watching at home, I have been contacted by several Members who are very sorry that they are not able to be here. I also want to put on record my thanks to the many hundreds of people who, over the years, have contacted the all-party group on coronavirus with their personal stories, many of which are very heart warming, but also moving and worrying because it is a debilitating condition. What I say to all of them is: “We hear you, you have not been forgotten and we will continue to fight for you.”

I want to recognise the actions that the Government have taken so far. I was pleased that, after the first debate we had on the issue in January 2021, the Government made some £18.5 million available for research into long covid, including treatment, and delivered even more funding in the summer, which is incredibly welcome. In that debate, I also welcomed the new dedicated long covid clinics and the publishing of guidance to medical professionals by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network and the Royal College of General Practitioners. However, despite that welcome action, it has felt, over the past eight months, that long covid has totally dropped off the radar and, on this issue, there has been very little debate.

I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) for coming to the Chamber to answer this debate. I believe that it is the first time that the Department for Business Energy and Industrial Strategy has answered in the Chamber on this. I will focus my remarks on the effect that long covid has had on the workforce because our belief is that this is a looming crisis that we need to think ahead about and that it would be wrong for us just to focus on the medical side— there are broader implications here.

Although there are many understandable reasons why this matter may have dropped off the radar, including the cost of living crisis and the war in Ukraine, I argue that these things are very much linked. How are we going to have a strong and productive economy if large swathes of our workforce are struggling to do the jobs that they are meant to be doing? How can we help them to recover?

Over this past year, we have had more information and learned more about long covid, although it is worth saying that there is still no cure. There are treatment plans that can help with symptoms, but the past year has been awful for many, including Andrew, a headteacher whom I spoke about in the debate a year ago, who received multiple written warnings about his inability to do the job in the day. I went back to him and asked how he was. He said:

“I made the difficult decision to resign from my post as a headteacher, so my limited energies could focus on coming to terms with my illness rather than continuing to face dismissal from a career that I had committed the past 25 years to and one that I dearly love.”

I also got an email from Nell, one of my constituents, who is a doctor. She said:

“I adore being a hospital doctor. I love my patients and I trained for years to do this. It’s been nearly two years of struggling with my health after covid, and while I continue to slowly recover, I don’t know if I can do this much longer. I’m so very sorry—I feel that I have let you down writing this.”

To Nell, I say that I do not believe that she has let anyone down, but I think that, to an extent, the Government have let her down.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way and for her excellent speech. I also thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting the debate. She has raised a couple of cases that she has heard about. I have been in touch a lot with Sam, a carer in my constituency. At the very beginning when she had long covid, people did not understand the condition and it was not taken seriously, and it has affected her ability to work ever since. Does the hon. Member agree that, as well as dealing with the health side and getting more research on how the condition affects people so differently, it is important to have guidance for employers—she will probably come on to this—on how to deal with this and how to support those who may have long covid through that very difficult period? As we do not know how long the condition lasts, we need a proper long-term strategy for those who are affected and for their families.

[Layla Moran]

The hon. Member hits the nail on the head. People can recover, and very often do, but the way to help them do that is very badly explained to employers right now. Indeed, I will come on to talk in some detail about that.

Many people were told, especially at the beginning, that long covid was something that they were making up. They were told that it was all in their head. I have a research paper here that shows that scans have been done on people’s chests and the reason they were suffering from breathlessness was that the tissue was fundamentally damaged. This is very much a real disease, which now needs a real response.

It is not just public sector workers who have dealt with this. I spoke to Rebecca, who gave evidence to the all-party parliamentary group. She was a fitness instructor, Madam Deputy Speaker. You would think that a fitness instructor would be very healthy and would have very good lungs—before the pandemic, anyway. She used to teach 14 high-intensity classes a week and ran her own business. Now long covid means that she is in bed 60% of the time and describes being

“unable to return to work, and to be the mum, wife or friend I once was”.

It is utterly heartbreaking. We now need to accept that, if we are going to live with covid, we also have to live with long covid. In the evidence sessions that the APPG took in December and January, we heard how the condition is still severely impacting the lives and livelihoods of people across the country. They described how the condition has left them unable to work, sometimes unable to move, forcing them into long periods of absence from work, dipping into their savings and doing anything to stay afloat—something that is much more difficult now with the cost of living crisis.

A study released this month by Queen Mary University concluded that becoming infected with covid increases the risk of economic hardship, especially if the individual develops long covid. Those individuals describe a patchwork of uneven availability when it comes to long covid clinics and many are desperate for treatment. We heard from one nurse, for example, who has spent thousands of pounds going to Germany to get treatment that she is not able to access here. Public sector workers gave their lives for us. When we were all allowed to be at home, they went in, and they are the ones, according to Office for National Statistics surveys, who have the highest prevalence of long covid. I believe that we owe them so much more than they have had so far.

Unsurprisingly, though, it is not just about public services. We have 1.4 million people across the country experiencing self-reported long covid symptoms. That is 2.4% of the population and that cuts across every single sector, not just the public sector.

In the hospitality sector, which, as the Minister will know, is already struggling, 2.6% of workers have long covid. If we take the 3 million workforce estimate from UKHospitality, that equates to 70,000 workers unable to do their jobs as they did before. In retail, it is 2.3%, which equates to just under 70,000 workers; for personal service, such as beauticians, it is a bit less at 6,000, but still 2.1%. Those are big numbers in sectors that are already struggling post pandemic and struggling with workers’ visas following Brexit. They do not need this.

[Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady and her colleagues on securing this important debate. Does she agree that it is not only the people who have had long covid who suffer, but their family members who have to care for them? My constituent Julie Wells has had a working life of nearly 40 years. Her teenage daughter, on a second dose of covid, has been left with totally debilitating symptoms and now needs constant care. Julie hopes at best to get back to part-time work, but she may not. That is a full-time person lost to the workforce because of caring for a family member.

[Layla Moran]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. The caring responsibilities are greatly increased, as is the prevalence in children. I was alerted by my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) to a case of a parent who is asking for dispensation for her child from taking examinations because she has missed so many days of school. I am talking to the Education Secretary separately about that point, but long covid affects the entire family, not just the workforce.

Some 1.5 million people have long covid, but 989,000 people say that those long covid symptoms adversely affect their day-to-day activities and 281,000 people report that their ability to undertake their day-to-day activities had been “limited a lot”. That often means they must take part-time instead of full-time work, and sadly it often means they are unable to recover well because they are pushed to try to get back to work.

The effect on business is now being better documented. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development found that a quarter of UK employers cited long covid as one of the main causes of long-term sickness absence among their staff. For small businesses, the effects can be devastating. The Federation of Small Businesses has shared guidance on how to help with statutory sick pay and arranging for temporary staff cover.

However, I am concerned that the ACAS guidance right now is pretty sparse; I hope the Minister might take that up. The guidance signposts to other websites but does not make it clear that one of the most important things to do with long covid is often to let someone rest. People say “listen to your body” when it comes to medical things; I am afraid that with long covid that is actually the treatment plan.

If someone is forced or encouraged into work by their employer—often inadvertently, if they do not have proper guidance—it can set them back and cause even more problems down the line. One of our main calls is for employer guidance, but I also urge the Government to look at the ACAS website, for example, and ensure that it is clear to employers how they can help and support their employees to stay at home and rest as long as they need to, so that they come back and we do not unnecessarily lose people from the workforce.

A legal expert speaking to the APPG described the lack of access to financial support and said,

“lots of people with Long Covid find themselves starting for the very first time to be involved in the obstacle course which is our benefit system”.

It is clear that long covid is having a serious impact on the ability of our workforce to do their jobs, and we can only expect that to get worse as the virus spreads through the population again and we get more cases of long covid.

What can we do? The all-party group has released a report on long covid this week; if the Minister has not seen it, I would be happy to give him a copy. In it, we make 10 recommendations, but I will highlight just a few. First, the Government need urgently to prioritise research treatments for long covid patients. We welcome the money already committed, but we would contrast it with the United States, for example, where $1 billion has been earmarked for this, because the US recognises the effect long covid could have on its economy and sees this as an investment. I urge the UK Government to find similar ambition.

Secondly, we call for employer guidelines, set out by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy in conjunction with the Department of Health and Social Care, to help all businesses to help their employees back into work. Thirdly, we call for the UK Government to launch a compensation scheme for all those frontline workers currently living with long covid, similar to the armed forces compensation scheme.

The Minister will perhaps be aware that the process for the designation of an occupational disease is ongoing; we are hopeful that that will report back soon, and we are discussing that with the Department for Work and Pensions. That designation could be game-changing, particularly in those public sector areas where prevalence was incredibly high, such as education, the health and social care workforce and public transport, which had some of the highest prevalences of covid, particularly at the beginning.

The Office for National Statistics survey points to where we need to look. However, I urge the Government not to wait for that designation. Many of those workers, as in my examples, have already left the professions. They are leaving the sector or deciding to take early retirement, and this is a time when our economy needs a boost. It needs those experienced workers. At the moment, we are not paying any attention to that.

The main reason we secured this debate was to urge the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to look ahead and take this seriously. The best thing we can do right now is to help hard-pressed people in the UK in our fight against Putin, against the cost of living crisis and all the rest. If we are to get our economy back on its feet, we must get our workers back at their desks. If those workers have long covid, there is currently very little out there to support them or those businesses that desperately want them back.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I think we can get everybody in with a reasonable amount of time, if everyone limits their comments to a maximum of eight minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

I sincerely thank the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) for all the work she has done on this issue, and for the way she opened this debate. I also thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it and the Members who have taken part. I thank in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), and I sincerely thank my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) for his kind words. It is nice to know that my experiences have helped somebody else with theirs, and I wish his family member well for the future. I also thank the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), and my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), who is absolutely right to draw parallels with ME both in some of the symptoms and in how that community has been treated over a number of years. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—because he is my friend—for his kind words, too.

As colleagues will know, not least because it has been mentioned in this debate, long covid is an issue very close to my heart. Back in March 2020, I first caught covid. That was 107 weeks and four days ago, and I am still struggling with some of the symptoms of long covid all these weeks and days later. Back then, I felt rough with covid, but to my relief I avoided a lot of the more serious symptoms we were seeing on the news and hearing from friends and colleagues at that time. It was not great, but the fact that I was not hospitalised was a blessing.

However, when my self-isolation period ended and in theory I should have been fine to return to work, I found that I could not. I found that I was perpetually exhausted, and I could not catch my breath. I would be talking to my wife, and suddenly the words would vanish. I would try to pick them out, but I could not find the right ones. I would forget things and lose track of why I had come into a room. I would sweat as though I had run the London marathon just doing routine day-to-day things such as making a cup of tea. I felt completely terrified. My symptoms were not going anywhere, but instead evolving into something different and seemingly something permanent.

In May 2020, Elisa Perego coined the term “long covid” to describe these persistent and wide-ranging symptoms, and I felt like a bright light had been shone on what I had been going through. We now know that over 1.5 million people suffer with long covid in the United Kingdom, and that the majority of these—989,000—say it affects their daily activities. It certainly affected mine. I am very fortunate to have a brilliant team across Westminster and in my constituency of Denton and Reddish, and they stepped up on my worst days, when getting out of bed felt like running a marathon. They made sure that my constituents were still well represented, and that I was given sufficient time to rest when needed. Listening to my body was a hard lesson, too.

However, millions of people in this country are not as fortunate as I was. We have some of the worst sick pay provision in the OECD, and we are in an age of precarious work. In that context, long covid becomes an economic as well as a health emergency. The fact of the matter is that there has been an acute failure on the part of Government to take long covid as seriously as perhaps they should, because it is not just a health issue, but an employment and a DWP issue. The Government could and, I believe, should be doing more to encourage workplaces to better support those suffering from long covid and to enable employers to understand precisely what long covid means for their workforce.

For December 2021 to January 2022, the most recent period we have access to, it has been shown that, of the 1.5 million people currently suffering from long covid, only 2,869 had attempted to access the post-covid assessment service. Of that tiny number, 34% had been waiting for longer than 15 weeks. Something is going very wrong. Almost 1 million people are reporting long covid symptoms that are adversely affecting their day-to-day lives, yet just a fraction are attempting to access care and only a fraction of those are actually getting it. I would be grateful if, in his response, the Minister set out what conversations he has had with colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care about these figures, and what action the Government will be taking to ensure that those who have long covid can actually access the care they desperately need.

This is actually quite crucial because, with the right rehabilitation package, work can become viable again for a proportion of those people. I want to share with the Minister some data I have received from Nuffield Health. Operating a free 12-week programme, it has so far helped over 1,900 people from across the UK to recover from the prolonged effects of covid-19, including breathlessness, anxiety and fatigue, and I am one of the 1,900 who have taken part in that free programme. Its results to date show that for 64% of people the programme improved mental wellbeing, for 39% it improved their functional capacity and for 39% it improved their breathlessness, while 35% saw an improvement in fitness and 30%—not an insubstantial number—were absent from work but felt they could return. This is not a silver bullet for all, because those are still minority figures, but I think that 30% being able to return to work with the right rehabilitation programme is quite encouraging.

As has been pointed out on numerous occasions, 4% of the UK workforce currently have long covid. That is an extraordinarily high number of people, and it will no doubt be having an impact both on workplace productivity and on wider employment outcomes. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development has found that a quarter of UK employers cited long covid as one of the main causes of long-term sickness among their staff, yet those living with long covid have had very little in the way of workplace protection.

In my capacity as shadow Minister for public health, I have been inundated with stories of employees facing an uphill battle to have reasonable adjustments implemented in their workplaces. I have heard from doctors unable to return to work and NHS staff who have been sacked or had contracts terminated because of long covid symptoms. They are the people who carried us through the pandemic—we stood on our doorsteps for them and applauded them. We can do much better than that.

I turn to the help that I had in returning to work. I pay tribute to Mr Speaker and the staff in the Speaker’s Office, because I am lucky enough to work in an environment where reasonable adjustments were made. When I first returned to the House in person after the summer recess, I found that I could not bob in the Chamber without becoming incredibly fatigued, and that would trigger my brain fog. After almost collapsing during a ministerial statement on Afghanistan—I had been bobbing for almost an hour—I arranged for a meeting with Mr Speaker on the basis that I could not do my job and, if I could not do a simple task like bobbing up and down, I might as well pack up and leave. Mr Speaker and his brilliant staff advised me that instead of rising on each occasion, I could simply hold up my Order Paper. That simple solution made a huge difference to my health and wellbeing. I sincerely thank Mr Speaker, and indeed you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the staff in the Speaker’s Office for being so understanding.

However, reasonable adjustments should not just be made for Members of Parliament. The Government need to do much more to empower employees to approach their bosses and have these conversations. The problem is that, with practically zero workplace protections in place for long covid, they become incredibly difficult to have.

The Opposition recognise the threat that long covid poses both to the health of this nation and to the British workforce. That is why we would end the postcode lottery of long covid care provision, fix the shameful state of sick pay and engage with employers to support those living with long covid. Covid has not gone anywhere, and it is profoundly irresponsible to stick fingers in ears and pretend that 1.5 million people are not still struggling. Free lateral flow testing will end tomorrow and, as a result, covid cases will rise. It will make it much harder to track the level of covid in the UK and, by extension, the number of people who may go on to develop and live with long covid.

[Layla Moran]

I am glad that the hon. Member has brought up that point. He will have heard about the difficulties that people have in accessing benefits and proving that they have long covid. People get long covid from covid, but, if they cannot get a test, how do they know if they have had covid? That makes it so much more difficult for people to prove long covid down the line and access the benefits that they deserve.

[Andrew Gwynne]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. That is a real concern of mine, not least because I have experienced it. I was in the first wave of covid, having caught it in the weeks when the Government said, “If you develop symptoms, you no longer need to test; just go into self-isolation.” I knew that I had covid, and I know that that led to long covid, but to this day I cannot prove it because there was no routine testing available to show it. That is a real issue.

I am incredibly worried that getting rid of free testing is a short-term decision that will have major financial and public health implications for the foreseeable future. The Government cannot turn a blind eye to a problem that is having a devastating impact on the people of this country. One of the defining lessons of the pandemic is that we do not have the luxury of dithering and delay when it comes to public health. We urgently need a cross-departmental long covid strategy. I would support that, work on it and gladly give my experience and advice to Ministers to help develop it. We need a long covid strategy, we need proper sick pay, and we need the Government to understand that they have an important role in working with business and industry to ensure that reasonable adjustments and support in the workplace become a thing for all, not just for me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

Our manifesto committed to consult on this issue. Within that consultation, we looked at a day one right to request flexible working. That is key, because it will attract people to and keep them in a good workplace. We might as well start as we are set to carry on.

Another significant part of the cross-departmental framework is the Government Equalities Office, which is responsible for the Equality Act 2010. That is an important part of the matrix, because it may protect those with long-term health conditions from discrimination. That Act ensures that any person with a condition that meets the definition of a disability is protected, so it should not be stigmatised. The Act describes disability as

“a physical or mental impairment”

that

“has a substantial and long-term adverse effect”

on a person’s

“ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities”.

We heard about that not least from the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish and during the incredibly passionate speech of the hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson), who cited the example of his family member. By the way, I know how difficult it is for an hon. Member to describe a family member who is suffering from something that we are debating, and I thank him for his personalised experience, which has informed the House and positively contributed so much to the debate.

As I said, the disability should not be stigmatised, though some may do so. This is simply about the impairment, as we have heard loud and clear. “Long-term” is defined having lasted, or being likely to last for, at least 12 months. “Substantial” is defined as more than minor or trivial, as we have heard strongly in Members’ examples today.

The Act makes it clear that it is not necessary for the cause of the impairment to be established, nor does the impairment have to be the result of an illness. A disability can therefore arise from a wide range of impairments. That means that any person who falls within that definition will already be protected as having a disability. That can therefore encompass some of the emerging effects of long covid, but every case will be different and should be considered on its merits.

As well as paying tribute to the hon. Member for City of Chester, I thank the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon and ask her to pass on our regards to Andrew, Nell and Rebecca. We also heard about Julie Wells and her daughter and the caring responsibilities involved. The examples that we have had really add colour and inform the debate.

The hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw talked about statutory sick pay. We have discussed the fact that we need to look at statutory sick pay, but this is not the time to do so, particularly while we are in the middle of the pandemic. However, we also need to look at statutory sick pay in the round. She mentioned people earning under £120 a week, but many in that situation are already in receipt of other benefits. That is what I mean about not just concentrating on one issue; we need to look at the whole person and their whole personal finance.

In summary, we are supporting people with long-term health conditions, including long covid, by working hard on the general approach to work and health, through our response to the “Health is everyone’s business consultation”, and taking steps to make some of our employment rights work a little harder to support those balancing work with other issues and challenges. All that is underpinned by the protections against discrimination provided by the Equality Act. We must also showcase the good employers, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for City of Chester.

[Layla Moran]

If I understand this correctly, the consultation is happening and guidance will be provided more comprehensively for all longer-term illnesses. The issue particularly with long covid is that it is so new that many employers do not have a clue what it is. Will he consider suggesting a public health information campaign particularly targeted at businesses so that they know that it exists and where they can go for such guidance?

[Paul Scully]

I often talk about ACAS guidance, which, obviously, is available in this area. The hon. Lady mentioned what she saw as shortfalls in that guidance. We will always look at that to make sure that guidance is up to date, especially with an evolving condition such as long covid. I keep citing the example of ME, which, like fibromyalgia, is one of those diseases that is very poorly understood by so many people in the workplace and even, frankly, by health professionals. It will evolve and I am sure that we will able to push that information out to employers.

I hope that hon. Members would agree that there is a wide-ranging set of actions to address long-term health issues in the workplace, whatever those health conditions are. We want to encourage a better culture around work and health, including for those suffering from long covid. I firmly believe that it is an important principle to have a single, consistent and clear approach to managing health in the workplace. It is unsustainable to have a number of different approaches for different conditions. I close by thanking everyone once again for this helpful and informative debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the impact of long covid on the UK workforce.

Large Solar Farms

Layla Moran Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2022 Westminster Hall

[Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered large solar farms.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I thank colleagues from across the House who are attending this debate, many of whom will be highlighting issues around large solar farms in their own constituencies. I thank the Minister for attending and all those watching at home on Parliament TV.

I will briefly outline the planning process for solar farms. Solar photovoltaic panels, known as solar panels, generate electricity from the sun, and large-scale solar installations are known as solar farms. Planning is a devolved issue, but energy plants that generate more than 100 MW for offshore and 50 MW for onshore generation are treated as nationally significant infrastructure projects and a development consent order must be sought from the Secretary of State for them; solar farms that generate power below that threshold require planning permission only from the local planning authority.

The national planning policy framework provides the framework in which local planning authorities draw up local plans and determine planning applications, and encourages them to promote renewable development and identify appropriate sites for it. The goal, which is admirable, is to meet the challenges of climate change, flooding and coastal change, including our transition to a low-carbon future.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this incredibly important debate and on his excellent speech so far. Does he agree that his assessment of the planning situation so far is the core of the issue? While we all accept that net zero is an important goal and the need for many farmers to find extra subsidies, the problem with the planning framework as it stands is that many large solar farms are being put up that generate just under the 50 MW limit, so they do not require an environmental impact assessment or the level of community input that they so deserve. Does he agree that that would be a welcome addition to the national planning policy framework that the Minister should consider?

[Brendan Clarke-Smith]

I thank the hon. Member for her input. I agree that it is extremely important that we move on and invest in renewables, but having community input and ensuring that we choose the right sites, that people have been consulted properly and that the planning process works for everybody, is incredibly important. That is the key issue. Few people are against renewable energy, and solar farms in general are not the issue; it is very much a planning issue of getting things in the right place at the right time.

Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Bill

Layla Moran Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 7th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

rose—

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I will give way first to the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and then to the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran).

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

First, I will give way to the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon.

[Layla Moran]

I was going to make the point that was just made: we should expect oligarchs to abide by the same rules that all the rest of us do.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

We all have to stop agreeing like this, as it will give the House a bad reputation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

I am afraid that I am now going to reduce the level of excitement by returning to some rather technical and boring but I think important legal details of the Bill, because we all want to make sure that this works in practice. I am concerned that, despite what is in the Bill itself and in a number of the amendments, there still seem to be two important areas of potential loophole.

Can I start with the definition of registrable beneficial owner, largely in schedule 2? The concern that I have, and I am fortified by the briefing I have received from the Law Society of England and Wales—it mirrors the briefing that I suspect the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) had from the Law Society of Scotland—is that there is a gap here, as the impact assessment of the Bill sets out. What has been done here is to take the existing domestic registry of persons of significant control and seek to build on that, which is fair enough, but it does not go far enough.

The problem that we have is this. There is a common misconception that analysing who the person of significant control of an entity is, is the same as analysing who the beneficial owner is. They are not the same and the objective we need to get to is: who is the economic beneficiary?

The position is this. The PSC regime seeks to establish ownership certainly, but only ownership in the context of leading to the control of the relevant entity. It does not seek to establish who the ultimate economic beneficiary of that entity is. So we could have a situation where the register disclosed the ownership of, let us say, a corporate group, but it would not then disclose who in fact are the people behind the corporate group. It might disclose individual named nominees, but it would not then disclose the people on whose behalf the nominees hold the property. There might in fact be no registrable person—no legal entity that holds significant control—so nobody would be shown up in that.

I urge the Minister to pay attention to what the Law Society suggests to get around that and to ensure the economic beneficiaries of the property are captured—the oligarchs and their families; they are the economic beneficiaries we want to get to. The trust and its beneficiaries—this will invariably be in the form of trusts of one kind or another—should also be registrable under regulation 45 or 45ZA of the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017. That is a mouthful, but it would do the job. The whole point is that then we would be able to capture the beneficiaries. That is missing from the Bill as it stands and I do not think any of the current amendments deal with that point. I hope the Minister, as he is taking things away, will take that away urgently in order to plug the loophole.

That relates to the relationship between the scheme under this Bill and the scheme of the trust registration service because that same set of 2017 money laundering regulations works in conjunction with the trust registration service: that is the body through which entities meet their legal obligation to register under those money laundering regulations. Express trusts are covered by that if they are UK trusts. Non-UK express trusts are obliged to register under the 2017 regulations if they hold UK property, or derive income from a UK asset—again, that is the sort of situation of the oligarchs that we are looking at.

We must be very clear in setting out which overseas trusts are going to be caught by the legislation. Are they under the regulations or under the Bill? If we extend the definition across, we might well cover that. It is also suggested—I think there is merit in this—that guidance should be issued to honest practitioners in this field setting out which entities are in scope of the scheme and which are out of scope. That has happened in other forms of tax legislation and will be a sensible idea to take away.

The final point I make in relation to that guidance is that that would enable the Secretary of State to give better indication as to interpreting the meaning of “significant influence or control” within legislation. We have got who the beneficial owner is, capturing the economic beneficiaries, and who the person of “significant influence or control” is. We ought to make tally with the PSC regime as far as we possibly can. The logical way to do that is by introducing an amendment to introduce the same provisions we are introducing here into section 790C(7) —I am sorry, again, about the length—of the Companies Act 2006. That would enable us to bring in the equivalent PSC regimes for limited liability partnerships —again there is a gap here, as I read it—unregistered companies, and also Scottish partnerships, which have been referred to by Opposition Members.

Those are gaps that the Law Society has flagged up that could be plugged. There is plenty of time between now and next week to get that worked out. I just say this: the Government have many able lawyers—I worked with some of them when I was a Minister. Specialism in detailed trust law is not necessarily a core Government legal business. The Law Society, both north and south of the border, has access to real expertise in this field, objectively. It has written to say that it would be very happy to work with the Government in helping to fine-tune the legislation. I hope the Government will think about that. Not all wisdom purely comes from within Whitehall and we ought to look to experience in the sector to take that on board.

I hope those suggestions will improve a Bill that is well intended, but we want to nail everything down as much as we can. In that spirit, I hope the Minister will consider them.

[Layla Moran]

I rise to speak to the amendments in my name: new clause 5 and, in particular, amendment 4, which is supported by the cross-party group that has been trying to get our ducks in a row. The Bill is welcome and timely. It is long overdue and we are all trying to pull in the same direction, but it is a bit of a Swiss cheese Bill. Much in the Bill is good, but there are a lot of loopholes, which we are seeking to close.

I will single out new clause 29 in the name of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and the amendments relating to clause 31 that were tabled by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). I heard what the Minister said about “Economic Crime Bill 2”. It sounds like the promise of the good sequel after the film—it is coming and it will be even bigger and better, with bigger stars than the first one—but we all know how sometimes part 2 can be a flop. I sincerely hope that part 2 will come sooner. I remember when the Minister was on his feet claiming that this Bill would wait until the next Session, and here we are debating it now. I welcome that. I wonder whether we might want to try to do that with part 2 and part 3 and get the sequels out as quickly as possible because each one will be pretty meaty and need time.

New clause 5 asks the Government to release the names of those who in the last year have been lobbying the Government against these measures. That is important because it helps on the SLAPPs amendments, which I wholly support. These people need to now be named and shamed. It is not enough to name the oligarchs; we need to name the PR companies and the lawyers—those who seek to water down or create loopholes in this legislation. I tabled a parliamentary question to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office—it was passed to the Home Office—asking it to provide and publish the names of those who had been doing that. The answer was:

“The information requested could not be obtained without disproportionate cost.”

Forget about the cost—do the Government have the list? If they do, those people deserve to be named and shamed, like in the speech by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) the other day. I hope that “Economic Crime Bill 2” will have all the necessary powers to clamp down on that activity.

Amendment 4, like amendment 26, looks small. It is very small; it just deletes a line in clause 18. It relates to the bit of the Bill that talks about exemptions. There are three ways in which an individual can become exempt if the Secretary of State wants them to be. Two of them are reasonable. They are

“in the interests of national security”

and

“for the purposes of preventing or detecting serious crime.”

Absolutely fine. Some people think we should just get rid of them all, but I can live with those. However, the third, in clause 18(1)(b), says that the Government can exempt an individual if satisfied that it is necessary to do so

“in the interests of the economic wellbeing of the United Kingdom”.

These are high net worth individuals. Many of them own companies that potentially employ thousands of people in this country. I do not understand why the Government want to give themselves that headache. Why do they want these enabling lawyers to look at clause 18(1)(b) and say, “I’m going to lobby Government to exempt me under 18(1)(b)”?

It is not just a loophole. People keep talking about horses bolting after the gates have been closed. This is hitching a coach to the horse, putting the oligarchs in it with their lawyers and allowing them to drive their way through the Bill. It makes no sense at sall.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. On the point about horses bolting, I want to mention my new clause 13 on freeports. That issue has come up a number of times in the past few weeks. We have been talking about the National Insurance Contributions Bill, which is the enabling Bill for freeports. It is really important that we include the list of companies that are in freeports; I made that point in the debate on that Bill last week. Currently, someone can hide the fact that they are using a freeport, and there is so much concern that this is an open invitation for money laundering in the UK. While we are still discussing this Bill, before it is passed and before this particular horse has bolted, will the Minister reconsider supporting the amendment that the Lib Dems tabled in the Lords to that particular piece of legislation—

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chairman]

We have to be careful not to allow things to be confused at Committee stage. Everyone gets their turn.

[Layla Moran]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. When the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy was at the Dispatch Box, he said that he would look closely at that amendment—it was the day before the vote on the National Insurance Contributions Bill—and I urge the Minister to look at that again.

[Sir Robert Buckland]

I have been listening carefully to the hon. Lady’s speech, and she is making an understandable point. My recollection about the phrase “economic wellbeing” is that it appears, for example, as an exemption to the right to privacy in article 8(2) in the European convention on human rights. What we should be looking for is provisions that match the rights acquired under article 1 of the first protocol—namely, rights to property—and clearly, there need to be qualifications on that in circumstances such as these. She is right to probe the Government so that we get language that mirrors, at the very least, convention rights. Does she not agree with that reasonable proposition?

[Layla Moran]

I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his helpful intervention. I would rather that we deleted these lines now—they cause a lot of problems—and then, when the Bill goes to the Lords, he should by all means have a conversation with the Minister and perhaps it can be tidied up there. My concern is that if this stays in the Bill now, we then end up with too much to do in the Lords. So much is being put off and is waiting for the Lords to have a look at it that we may never get to these things. It is such a small thing, but its impact is huge.

We all want the same thing. Let us not get the enablers to start betting on clause 18(1)(b). Amendment 4 is very simple—it would delete this now. We might have to tidy a few things up in the Lords, but I would be really grateful if the Minister specifically addressed how he will ensure that clause 18(1)(b) does not end up ruining what is otherwise a good Bill that has been made much better by all the amendments that have been tabled, including by the Government.

[Liam Byrne]

Thank you for calling me to speak, Dame Eleanor. I thank the Minister for his presentation to the House and for the spirit that I thought he brought to his remarks at the outset. He slightly walked back from some of that consensus, but I make the point to him that many of us across the House think that the Government’s approach to tackling economic crime is all holes and no net. We have tried, in 27 pages of amendments, to turn what should be a net into some snares. That is why we cannot understand why the Government are not taking on board some of the smaller, technical drafting amendments that we proposed tonight—and frankly, some of the bigger moves. The Minister has it in his power to drive those through tonight so that by the time the sun rises tomorrow, we would have in our country a much stronger framework for tackling economic crime to take to the other place.

I want to speak to the two amendments in my name—amendments 37 and 38—and weigh in on the debate on amendment 26 and new clauses 2 and 29. Let me start with amendment 26, because I was a Home Office Minister for a couple of years, and I have won and lost many cases as a Home Office Minister. I have to say to the Minister that the failure to remove the words “knowingly or recklessly” from the Bill is frankly the oligarchs’ loophole—their “Get out of trouble free” card. I add my plea to those of other hon. Members that we remove those words. Otherwise, frankly, we will stand by and watch the richest people on earth driving a coach and horses through our legislation.

My second point is about new clause 2. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) said, the heart of our problem with sanctioning—our frankly embarrassing performance on it—is that as well as not having the right powers, we just do not have the right resources in place. The fact that the Government took away the title of Minister for Economic Crime tells us everything we need to know about their performance and attitude hitherto.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) said, the United Kingdom has sanctioned 34 individuals and entities since the extension of the invasion; the EU has sanctioned more than 500. Of the Navalny list of 35 that the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) read out in the House the week before last, the UK has sanctioned just eight; the EU has sanctioned 19. However, what really troubles me is the question of resources, because that is obviously the core problem.

When I submitted parliamentary questions to the Foreign Office, the Treasury and the Home Office last week, I was frankly horrified. My question to the Foreign Office, which leads on sanctioning policy, was pretty straightforward: how much money is devoted to sanctioning, and how many civil servants are working on it? The answer from the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), was about 16 lines long and did not mention either how many civil servants are working on sanctioning or how much money is being spent.

An answer to the same question came back from the Minister for Security and Borders. In a way, I admire the number of tropes folded into his answer:

“The National Crime Agency welcomes the announcement on the Combatting Kleptocracy Cell…They have already surged additional officers to support existing efforts and will”—

wait for it—

“move at pace to enhance the unit further”.

I put the same question to the Treasury. The Treasury being the Treasury, it said:

“The staff in post in OFSI was 37.8 FTE…This information can be found in HM Treasury’s Outcome Delivery Plan”.

That is the level of precision that we ask of every Department. Frankly, the silence tells us that all is not well. That is why new clause 2 is so very important.

New clause 29, tabled by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), is incredibly important, but I push the Minister to go further. We need to be able not only to freeze assets, but to seize them. Paragraph 3.1.3 of the UK financial sanctions guidance in December 2020 says that the use of an asset, even when it is frozen, is not prohibited.

The Minister will forgive the Opposition for growing frustrated over the years at the economic policy that the Government have pursued, which has created a country of haves, have-nots and have-yachts. He can imagine how frustrated we are that the Government will not even seize the yachts when they belong to oligarchs. Somebody has very kindly shared with me a list of candidates that the Minister might want to consider: the My Solaris, owned by Roman Abramovich; the Eclipse, which is sailing in the north Atlantic and which the Government would have no means of either seizing or freezing as an asset if it docked at a UK port; the Valerie, owned by Sergey Chemezov, which is currently in Barcelona; the Lady Anastasia, which is currently in Mallorca in Spain; the Tango, which is also in Mallorca; the Palladium, which is currently in Barcelona; the Aurora, in Barcelona; Here Comes the Sun, in Mallorca; Ice, in Genoa; the Ragnar, in Narvik; Sailing Yacht A, owned by Melnichenko—

Corporate Transparency and Economic Crime

Layla Moran Excerpts

Monday 28th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

Absolutely. That is the point of this raft of measures. We want to shine the light of transparency on these transactions and to minimise the likelihood of people using our property and our goodwill to hide their ill-gotten gains.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

As the MP whose name is on the Registration of Overseas Entities Bill, which is already tabled, may I express my delight that the Government are taking this up and more? Could I draw the Secretary of State’s eye to the amendment to the National Insurance Contributions Bill that was passed in the other place on the ownership of freeports? There is real concern that we may be dealing with one part but leaving a door open somewhere else. Will he assure us either that he will accept the amendment or that the matter will be covered in the Bill?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I am delighted to accept the hon. Lady’s warm words on the Bill. I am delighted that she is supporting it enthusiastically, and I am happy to engage with her on the passage of the Bill and to examine the amendment she has referred to.

Economic Crime: Planned Government Bill

Layla Moran Excerpts

Wednesday 26th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his work in this area as well. Because there has been no consensus, it is important that the Law Commission looks at this matter, because we are dealing with a very technical crime and if we are going to get the answers to it right, we have to get this right first time. We will, absolutely, consider that report in its fullest when it comes to us.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) on securing this urgent question and thank him for backing my Bill, which would have brought in that register of beneficial interests. When I mentioned this to the Prime Minister just this week, he pointed to the Leader of the House and said it would be introduced as soon as possible, but now look what has happened: the vehicle we would have used to do that is gone. So I ask the Minister: how can he say that he is taking this seriously, given that this Government say one thing and do the complete opposite, do they not?

[Paul Scully]

I am afraid the hon. Lady is pre-empting the Queen’s Speech—Her Majesty will present this. There has been nothing pulled at all; Her Majesty will set out the Government’s programme in due course.

Gas and Electricity Costs

Layla Moran Excerpts

Tuesday 18th January 2022 Westminster Hall

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I start by congratulating my dear hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) on bringing forward this important debate. I also commend the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris), who this week has had the backbone to stand up for her constituents on the cost of living crisis, while the Prime Minister seems to have inadvertently misled himself as to whether or not he attended a party. That does rather stick in the throat and perhaps shows the priorities of this Government.

This issue really matters because it matters to millions. Like many, I have received emails from concerned constituents. One, Margaret, is desperately concerned. Some 3,000 people in Oxford West and Abingdon are already classed as being in fuel poverty, and she is concerned about how many more are going to succumb. She is right to be. Jessica, who lives literally 10 minutes down the road from Margaret, emailed me on the same day. She is already classed as being in fuel poverty. She is considered vulnerable by her energy supplier. She currently pays £85 a month for her energy and has been told that that is going to increase to £200 a month—she says that there is no way she can afford those kinds of prices. Dave, who is on £10 an hour, contacted me with a similar story and Jane, who is a pensioner, told me that when she looks at what she will have to pay, she knows that she simply does not have the money. I ask the Minister: what are these people meant to do?

[Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

I also welcome this debate and thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for securing it. My constituency of Manchester, Gorton has long faced a fuel poverty crisis. In 2019, almost a quarter of families there were in fuel poverty; given current concerns about sky-rocketing fuel bills, the number will now undoubtedly be substantially higher. Does the hon. Member agree that this issue predates today’s cost of living crisis and that this Government have overseen a dramatic rise in fuel poverty without taking any of the action necessary to mitigate it?

[Layla Moran]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I absolutely agree. I am also deeply concerned that the problem will get worse over the next few weeks. We have only to read the emails or listen to the stories to be moved by them. Martin Lewis, who was mentioned earlier, dedicated an entire episode of his “Martin Lewis Money Show Live” to energy prices the other day. Afterwards, he tweeted that he was “near tears” after being unable to help a single mother, who had recently lost her partner, to afford her energy bills. He called on the Government to do more, and I agree with Martin.

The Minister will have heard many good suggestions today. My hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross mentioned cutting VAT on bills, a social tariff and an increase in the winter fuel allowance. Age UK has suggested a £50 one-off payment to those eligible for the cold weather payment and a doubling of household support. All those could work, and we have to ask the question: when are they going to come in? People are already hurting now.

There is also a secondary question, and a correct one: who is going to pay for it? Even more galling than all I have discussed is that after hearing all these stories of hardship and heartache, Gazprom announced a dividend of £179 million. Energy giants such as Gazprom are profiteering from the misfortunes of others. Frankly, the Government are complicit because they are letting them.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

The hon. Lady mentions Gazprom and how the UK is in hock to such gas producers from outside the UK. If we cast our minds back, do we not see that a mistake of George Osborne’s penny-pinching, bean-counting style of five, six or seven years ago was his reluctance to use the climate change levy to invest in renewables to make us less dependent on energy from overseas and give us more renewable capacity, which could have been built here? For the sake of a few pennies, it was his argument—I disputed it at the time, when I was the Chair of the Energy and Climate Change Committee—that we should not do so. Now the customers of the UK are on the hook for hundreds and hundreds of pounds each and every year.

[Layla Moran]

I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. It is for exactly that strategic reason that the Liberal Democrats are calling for a Robin Hood tax on the super-profits of oil and gas companies. This one-off levy would raise over £5 billion to support households in need of help. Surely that is the fairest way to help the worst off.

However, there is a wider geopolitical point. Gazprom, as we know, is owned by the Russian state, and Gazprom, at the behest of Putin, sent 25% less gas than before to Europe in the last year. We all know that Putin is playing politics with our energy prices, and that is making all of us and our constituents suffer. On one hand, the Government say they will not reward Russia for aggression; on the other hand, by doing nothing about the situation, they are allowing Putin to manipulate the energy market and he is being rewarded for it. We believe that instituting a Robin Hood tax would have many advantages, but one would be to send a powerful message to Putin in Moscow: “You cannot interfere with our energy market”.

Fundamentally—this comes to the point that the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) made—in the long term we need to wean this country, and indeed the entire world, off gas and oil altogether as soon as possible. That is why the answer to this problem is not to cut investment in green energy, as some have suggested. Whether it comes into general taxation or there is another way to fund it—that is the conversation that needs to be had—we need to increase investment in renewable energy, because to protect people now we need to think strategically in the medium and long term. The answer is to end our dependency on rogue states and protect the poorest in our communities.

[Alan Brown]

I just wonder how a Robin Hood tax on oil companies operating in the North sea would affect reliance on Putin or Gazprom, or how it would affect Gazprom’s share price or dividend. Those things seem to me to be almost diametrically opposite.

[Layla Moran]

We need to ensure that there is fairness in the system, and we know that all oil and gas companies have made enormous profits. My right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) made the point earlier about customers who had been loyal to oil and gas companies but who now face high bills, when the companies themselves are profiteering. There are many reasons why a Robin Hood tax would work, but one is the geopolitical point that I am making today.

Bulb Energy: Administration

Layla Moran Excerpts

Wednesday 24th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I have two points in response to my hon. Friend. First, I am not embarrassed about the retail price cap. It has protected consumers effectively and we are proud to maintain it. On the security of gas, I could not agree with him more, but he should be addressing his comments to other Members of this House, who want essentially to shut down the UK continental shelf. We had a North sea transition deal precisely because we recognised that the transition would take a number of years.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

The fact that another energy supplier has gone under is causing huge anxiety for constituents everywhere, who will be equally concerned that the supplier of last resort process has not worked in this case. Will the Secretary of State reassure them: how many other energy suppliers is he concerned about this winter and how many customers would that represent? If this process is not working, is he considering a Northern Rock-style energy company to take on customers of companies that have gone under, given that the process has not been working in this case?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

As I have maintained, there are two forms of remedy to deal with this sort of situation: the supplier of last resort, and a special administrative regime. In the particular instance that is the subject of the urgent question, it was felt by Ofgem, not the Government, that the supplier of last resort mechanism was inappropriate, and we are therefore looking at the special administrative regime, as I said in my statement—but both the structures are working.

Advanced Research and Invention Agency Bill

Layla Moran Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Monday 7th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Although a number of people have withdrawn from this debate, there are still a fair number of speakers. That means that if everybody takes about six minutes, we will be able to get everybody in. We need to think of each other in conducting the debate. Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 on the call list have withdrawn, so we now go to Layla Moran.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD) [V]]

As a physics graduate and the MP for Oxford West and Abingdon—a constituency proudly at the heart of this country’s scientific innovation—I welcome much of what ARIA hopes to achieve. Time and again, the lack of funding for genuinely high-risk, high-reward science is a common refrain in conversations I have with scientists I meet, so on the face of it ARIA is a good idea.

Nevertheless, the Liberal Democrats have concerns about the Bill, and I will quickly raise just two. First, we are very concerned about the Secretary of State’s unchecked powers to choose who leads this highly independent agency. On top of that, it was recently revealed that the Government’s intention is to exempt ARIA from freedom of information legislation. Transparency is at the core of good science, as it should be for good politics. If we want this organisation to succeed, the public should have faith in how taxpayers’ money is spent. That is why the Liberal Democrats have proposed a strong accountability mechanism in amendment 11, which would give the Science and Technology Committee the power to approve nominees for the position of chair and chief executive officer.

Secondly, it is beyond disappointing that the Government have failed to use ARIA’s potential to tackle the climate emergency. New clause 3 would therefore ensure that ARIA’s research did not lead to any increase in the UK’s carbon emissions. Moreover, a quarter of ARIA’s annual budget would be directed specifically to the development of green technologies.

In conclusion, transparency and the climate emergency are two of the very many important aspects that are missing from this Bill—ones that we seek to fix. This new agency has great potential. Let us not mess it up now.