Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Layla Moran Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 13th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

rose—

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

rose—

[Sir Robert Neill]

I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman first.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Ellis]

Of course, it takes two sides to discuss such matters and come to a solution. I think it has been accepted by all who have spoken so far that there has been some intransigence on the European Union’s side. That is the clear reality. For example, there have been more than 300 hours of discussions between the parties, over 26 meetings involving my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary or her predecessor Lord Frost, and 17 non-papers. I am not sure how much more could be done in terms of negotiation; it does need two sides.

I will move on, as I have several amendments to address and I do not want to interfere with Members’ right to speak in due course.

On amendment 26 and new clause 8, tabled by the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), she is right to raise the important issue of this Bill’s relationship with the UK’s international legal obligations. However, the amendment is not necessary. The Government have already published a statement setting out their legal position that the Bill is consistent with the UK’s international obligations. In line with the practice of successive Governments over several years, it summarises our position but does not set out the full detail of our legal advice. That is not something that any Government of any shade can do, and it is quite rare to give such a memorandum.

The statement makes it clear that the strain that the arrangements under the protocol are placing on institutions in Northern Ireland, and more generally on socio-political conditions, means there is no other way of safeguarding the essential interests at stake other than the Bill we propose. There is clear evidence of a state of necessity to which the Government must respond. As in other areas, it would not be prudent for the Government to publish evidence or analysis underpinning every point of legal detail—the lawyers in this House will know that that would be extremely inappropriate—particularly in advance of specific cases arising in potential future litigation. I therefore urge the hon. Lady not to move her amendment.

[Layla Moran]

Will the Minister give way?

[Michael Ellis]

I will because it is the hon. Lady’s amendment.

[Layla Moran]

The Minister is arguing that future litigation is why we cannot see the full legal advice, but it is precisely because future litigation is quite likely that this House deserves to see the full legal advice.

[Michael Ellis]

It is long-standing convention for very good reason that legal advice is not published in full. We know that, famously, from the Labour Government a couple of decades ago, when there was an enormous controversy about that. It stands as a very good reason, as I have discussed. However, we have published a memorandum on the matter that goes some way towards answering the hon. Lady’s question.

I move on to amendments 31 and 32 and new clause 10, tabled by the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy). The Bill is designed to bring swift solutions to the issues that the protocol has created in Northern Ireland. Those solutions are underpinned by the designation of elements of the protocol as “excluded provision”. Put simply, by excluding some elements of the protocol and withdrawal agreement in domestic law, the Bill is able to introduce, with the necessary certainty, the changes that are needed in Northern Ireland.

These amendments, through the conditions they would impose, would undermine the ability to exclude elements of the protocol and therefore undermine the entire operation of the Bill. The first condition in particular—that provision is excluded only if the EU and the UK agree to it—is obviously unworkable. Negotiations with the EU have so far been incapable of delivering the solutions that are needed, so to set that as a condition would clearly be dysfunctional. The second condition—that provision is excluded only if necessary as part of an article 16 safeguard—also fails to meet the needs of the situation. As I have said, article 16 has inherent limitations in its scope in that such safeguard measures could address some trade frictions, but not the broader identified impacts of the protocol.

In sum, the right hon. Gentleman’s amendments would unacceptably caveat the core operation of the Bill. In other words, they would be wrecking amendments preventing it from delivering the swift solutions in Northern Ireland that it is intended to provide, and that is why I ask him not to press them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jesse Norman]

It has been a splendid debate, and it is my happy privilege to stand as the thorn between two legal roses in my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), the acuity of whose interventions has been noted by the House, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Sir Geoffrey Cox), the former Attorney General, with his soaring rhetoric and legal genius.

I will be brief. Everyone in this House recognises, I am sure, that it is vital to make the Northern Ireland protocol work better; that the EU, as described and discussed today, has been intransigent and could do with more direct input from our friends and allied member states, France, Germany, Holland and the rest; and that we need an improved and supported political settlement and situation in Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, however, for reasons contemplated and discussed today, and which I will briefly summarise, this Bill is not the answer.

It has been properly pointed out that the doctrine of necessity does not apply in anything like the way the Government describe it. I am not a lawyer, but even I can see that when the Minister concedes at the Dispatch Box that immediacy is not at stake and is not implied by the conception of urgency that the Government wish to deploy. In breaching international law, for the reasons that my right hon. and learned Friend the former Attorney General set out, the Bill breaks the general principle that promises must be kept. However, that is itself an unwritten principle of the British constitution, so this Bill is also a contravention of our constitution. Of course, it appears to breach article 5 of the withdrawal agreement, in which both the UK and EU state that they will faithfully enact the measures to fulfil their obligations arising from the new agreement. Finally, as has been pointed out, the wide powers contemplated under clause 4 are themselves are in clear conflict with the rule of law in the ministerial discretion that they confer.

In principle, this Bill is extremely unwise to say the least, but it is also, just in pragmatic terms, misguided and likely to be counterproductive. As my right hon. and learned Friend mentioned, there is no long-term solution to be reached by a unilateral attempt to impose one side’s will on a shared international treaty. Of course, there is no reason to think that this will change the EU’s behaviour in relation of Northern Ireland. Why should it? The EU’s concern is that the UK has been untrustworthy, and far from allaying that concern, the Bill actively reinforces it. If the EU made a concession in response—if by chance it struck a new agreement with the UK on the basis of the pressure supposedly conferred by this legislation—why should it believe that the UK would then abide by such an agreement? That whole rationale would already have been destroyed. Of course, for reasons already discussed today, this is merely the beginning of the potential trouble involved.

The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) properly talked about the integrity of the United Kingdom, and he was absolutely right to flag that up. However, another kind of integrity is at stake here: the integrity of our overall British patriotic desire to project ourselves as a nation with a historic willingness to lead in matters of reputation and international law. That integrity is being put at risk by this piece of legislation.

I am not going to support amendment 1, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, not because it is not a perfectly fine piece of drafting, but because this Bill is unamendably bad, in my judgment. I very much hope that this House will not see it through, and that if it does, the Bill will be rejected on Second Reading by the other Chamber.

[Layla Moran]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), and I completely agree with him. I and the Liberal Democrats intend to vote against this Bill when it eventually comes to its Third Reading. I will speak today particularly to new clause 8 and its paving amendment 26.

First, however, I want to put on record my huge disappointment that the Bill is in Committee today because, since Second Reading, we have had a lame duck Prime Minister and a Foreign Secretary who cancelled her meeting with G20 leaders in Bali, where she should have been, and instead came back to start her leadership campaign. This Bill is an incredibly controversial move, and it would have been right and proper for it to have gone away for a while—under the definition of “urgent” that the Minister put forward, that would have seemed to make sense—and then come back when it is clear what direction the Government really want to take. Make no mistake, this Bill is going to affect our standing on the world stage.

My amendments relate to the release of the legal advice. It is absolutely right and proper that the Conservative leadership election has turned our eyes to honesty, integrity and, in particular, trust following what has happened with the current Prime Minister, and that is what my amendments do. They ask the Government, “What have you got to hide?” If there is nothing to hide, they should publish the full legal advice and trust this House to scrutinise it properly.

I urge Government Members to look carefully at what the Attorney General has said since giving her advice on this Bill, because she is also running to be leader of the Conservative party, and she has suggested pulling out of the European Court of Human Rights. As we know, the Court underpins the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. The Attorney General does not seem to understand how that correlates with the Good Friday agreement, yet we are relying on her legal advice. I would suggest that that is nothing we can rely on. We understand from newspapers that the Government shopped around for legal advice, and reportedly they even spoke to a former adviser of President Trump. However, if they have nothing to hide, they should publish the advice.

In the Minister’s response to my question earlier, he said the Government may well go to litigation over this and may well be taken to court over the definitions in relation to the doctrine of necessity. As a reason for advice not to be published, he said:

“We know that, famously, from the Labour Government a couple of decades ago, when there was an enormous controversy about that.”

That suggests that we should not see the legal advice because of what happened following the release of the advice on the Iraq war, but we know from the inquiry that that is nonsensical because the Government in that case did have something to hide and were found out later. If this Government want to get the trust of Parliament and do not want to have egg on their face in the international courts, they should release the advice. I urge them to support amendment 26, which I hope—by your leave, Dame Eleanor—we can push to a vote later.

[Stella Creasy]

We are now nearly three hours into the debate and we have not named what the actual problem is. The honest truth is that the problems did not start with the protocol; the problem is Brexit and the necessity of the protocol. For the avoidance of doubt, to acknowledge that Brexit is the problem is not to say that we do not need to change the protocol, it is not to call for us to rejoin the European Union and it is not to call for a second referendum. It is to recognise that selective democratic deafness when trying to discuss what we need to do will continue to damage all our opportunities unless we recognise that there is not a protocol solution that is as perfect as the previous trading arrangements we had.

The risk is that this Bill will make a bad situation worse, like someone having a bad tattoo and taking a blowtorch to it to try to get rid of it. The Government are like the drunk at a party spilling red wine everywhere and then deciding that throwing white wine after it is the solution. That is what this Bill is, which is why Members need to stop saying, like Homer Simpson, that Brexit is a “crisotunity” and recognise that problems are coming from the opportunities they are looking for. There are problems for civil servants who have to go through 2,500 pieces of legislation, and problems for our constituents, especially if the Bill goes through and we have a trade war with Europe. That will hit everybody—not just those in Northern Ireland, but people in my constituency. There are problems caused by the fact that the EU has already launched legal action and could “restrict co-operation”, and problems for the 33% of businesses that have already given up trading with the European Union, including those mentioned by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson)—I am sorry he is not in his place to talk about these things. [Interruption.] I apologise; he has moved and I could not see him.

We knew these problems were going to happen, yet the Government have done nothing other than introduce this Bill to make things better; they look only to provoke and to make things worse. We talked about oven-ready deals, yet the Foreign Secretary says that the problems were baked in. Frankly, Mary Berry would see the Bill as having a soggy bottom because it is so rubbish.

The report by the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law states clearly that the Bill is in breach of international law, and that is why I tabled new clause 7. I hope the Minister will recognise that simply repeating again and again, as the legal memorandum does, that the Government believe that the Bill meets the test of necessity under international obligations, without explaining how, is not tort, it is just a tautology. We cannot say something is necessary and not say why it is necessary, or whether the conditions might change—I agree absolutely with the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) on those matters. We know there are things we could do to make that clear, and at least to take back control—after all, the Government said that Brexit was about democracy, but it is turning out to be about Downing Street instead.

New clause 10 would ensure that the Government act within international law. New clause 7 is about evidence that we are acting within international law, and about explaining to our constituents why it would be necessary to take such extreme measures. As the Hansard Society tells us, the Bill is breathtaking in the additional powers it takes and the exercise of those excessive powers, with 19 delegated powers under 26 clauses—I have never seen anything like it in this place in the past 12 years. Those powers are based on ideas that Ministers consider “appropriate”, just as they consider what is “necessary”. As we have seen today, however, they cannot really define what “urgent” means. Most people would recognise that “urgent” probably means “immediate”, rather than “sometime in the future.” Considering that any provision can be made by an Act of Parliament, as the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) recognised, if we allow that with the Bill, we could see it for other Bills—literally taking back control from these Benches and sending it to the road opposite.

Finally, there is no way that the Bill supports the Good Friday agreement, which, in and of itself, is an international agreement. We want to stand and challenge President Putin as he rips up the rule of law, yet we say that there are rules of law that we think no longer apply to us. How can we say that we will also guarantee the protections of the Good Friday agreement? How can we give the constituents of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley the certainty they want, and that we recognise they should have, to be able to go about their business and have peace and prosperity, if we act as if the rule of law does not matter or can be bent to shape the will of a particular political movement?

The Bill is about the Government needing Europe to be a bogeyman, and as we have seen from the leadership contest, there are bogeymen aplenty. In reality, this can do only harm. We must recognise that the problem does not start with the protocol. The problem starts with Brexit, and how we negotiate a trade agreement and deal with the problems that arise from leaving the single market and customs union. Our constituents in every part of the United Kingdom deserve that honesty. New clause 7 is about Governments being honest, and just as new clause 10 should not have needed to be tabled, nor should new clause 7, but it did need to be tabled under current circumstances. The people who rely on this place to make reasonable regulations, to admit their problems, as though they were 12-step problems, and to make amends, need and deserve nothing less.

CHOGM, G7 and NATO Summits

Layla Moran Excerpts

Monday 4th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

First, may I thank my hon. Friend very much for everything he did as envoy for freedom of religion or belief? It is at least partly thanks to his energy and efforts that we have a global conference in this city this week on freedom of belief around the world. I can tell him that one of the many things that unite the Commonwealth is a passionate determination to protect that freedom.

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

Clamping down on Putin’s cronies and their money—far too little, too late, but nevertheless we are getting there—has I think been one of the positives of this war so far. I am glad to hear the Prime Minister say that he is committed to the economic crime Bill 2 and all the measures in it, but I want to ask him specifically about golden visas. Four years ago, the review of golden visas was promised, but it has not been delivered. Why?

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to the hon. Member. We are doing everything we can to make sure that we restrict access to this country by Putin’s cronies or anybody who supports the invasion of Ukraine, and that is why we are reviewing the golden visa scheme.

Oral Answers to Questions

Layla Moran Excerpts

Wednesday 29th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that. Stillbirth is an appalling tragedy that has the most devastating impact on families across the country. The Ministry of Justice and the Department of Health and Social Care have jointly consulted on proposals to provide coroners with new powers in that regard. I have looked at that personally, and we will publish the Government’s response to the consultation shortly.

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

Q11. Threatened, terrified and alone. That is how survivors of sexual violence told me they felt when they were pressured into signing non-disclosure agreements and gagging clauses by their universities. No victim of sexual assault or harassment should ever be coerced into silence by the very institutions that are meant to protect them—not at university, not at work, not anywhere. Will the Government back my Non-Disclosure Agreements Bill to ban the use of NDAs in cases of sexual harassment, bullying and misconduct? Will the Deputy Prime Minister consider meeting me in his role as Justice Secretary to discuss how we will put a stop to this deplorable practice once and for all?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I will look carefully at any particular proposals that the hon. Lady has. We have got to do everything we can to protect women and girls in this country and to make them feel more confident in the justice system. That is why I am relieved—but restless to go further—that in the last year the volume of rape convictions is up by two thirds. In the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which came into force this week, we took extra measures. For example, we have: extended the time limit for reporting domestic abuse; and criminalised taking photos of a mother breastfeeding without consent. I will certainly look at her proposals.

Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

Layla Moran Excerpts

Thursday 21st April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Keir Starmer]

Again, I express my sadness at the loss that the hon. Member and his family have endured. I was particularly struck—I think we all were—by how he spoke about that in this House just a few months ago.

On the substantive point, which is the point of the motion, this is about honesty, integrity and telling the truth in this place. It is an important principle, and one that we all share—as I say, I do not claim it as a Labour party principle—because we know the importance of it. That is why it is a matter for the House to consider. But it is a principle under attack, because the Prime Minister has been accused of repeatedly, deliberately and routinely misleading the House over parties held in Downing Street during lockdown.

That is a serious allegation. If it is true, it amounts to contempt of Parliament. It is not, and should never be, an accusation made lightly. Nor should we diminish the rights of Members to defend each other from that accusation. But the Prime Minister’s supporters do not seek to do that. Instead, many of them seek simply to dismiss its importance. They say, “There are worse crimes,” “He didn’t rob a bank”, “He only broke the rules for 10 minutes” and, “It was all a long time ago.” Every time one of those arguments is trotted out, the status of this House is gradually eroded and our democracy becomes a little weaker. The convention that Parliament must not be misled and that, in return, we do not accuse each other of lying are not curious quirks of this strange place but fundamental pillars on which our constitution is built, and they are observed wherever parliamentary democracy thrives. With them, our public debate is elevated. When Members assume good faith on behalf of our opponents, we can explore, test and interrogate our reasonable disagreements about how we achieve our common goals. Ultimately, no matter which Benches we sit on, no matter which Whip we follow, fundamentally we are all here for one reason: to advance the common goals of the nations, of the peoples, that make up our United Kingdom.

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

I am grateful to the Leader of the Opposition for giving way. He mentioned some of the arguments around, “Well, it was just nine minutes.” I met a woman, the daughter of a serviceman who lost his life the week before that birthday party. She said to me, “What I wouldn’t give for just nine more minutes with him.” I congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman on the way he is rising above party politics here. To diminish nine minutes as just anything diminishes us all across both sides of the House. Would he not agree?

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful for that intervention, because it goes to the heart of the matter. Some have tried to suggest equivalence between these fixed penalty notices and speeding. That just does not understand the enormity of the difference. It is very rare that the whole nation goes through something together—a trauma together, that was covid. There are awful cases of funerals, of weddings that were missed, of parents who did not see the birth of their children. They are awful cases, but I think almost every family was marked during this period, including my own, by things we did not do that we would have liked to have done—usually visiting elderly parents and seeing children. There was a huge sense of guilt that we did not do it, including in my own family: guilt that because we followed the rules, we did not do what we thought was actually right by our elderly relatives. That is why it hurts so much. That is why anybody trying to say, “This is just like a speeding ticket” does not understand what this goes to politically and emotionally.

Going back to the principles, I want this debate to be about the principles, because that is where I think the debate should be. The Committee will be charged, if the motion goes through, with determining whether there was any misleading. But this is about the principles we all care about. That is why I think everybody should simply vote for the motion this evening to uphold those principles. Those principles, that we do not mislead the House and in return we do not call each other liars in this House, ensure that we make good decisions and avoid bad ones. It is what makes our democracy grow in ways that reflect the hopes and tackle the fears of those we represent. It is what makes our democracy thrive. It is what makes this House thrive. It is what makes Britain thrive.

Mr Speaker, we do not have to look far to see what happens when that faith is lost and there is no hope of reason resolving disagreements. When nations are divided, when they live in different worlds with their own truths and their own alternative facts, democracy is replaced by an obsession with defeating the other side. Those we disagree with become enemies. The hope of learning and adapting is lost. Politics becomes a blood sport rather than a quest to improve lives; a winner-takes-all politics where, inevitably, everyone loses out.

Appointment of Lord Lebedev

Layla Moran Excerpts

Tuesday 29th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Michael Ellis]

Lord Lebedev is a British citizen of Russian extraction who, I understand, had his primary and secondary education in this country. I see no logic in the Labour party’s assessment.

In order to put this issue in its true context, it is necessary to remind hon. Members of the process for nominations for peerages. The power to confer a peerage, with the entitlement to sit in the House of Lords, is vested in Her Majesty the Queen and is exercised on the advice of the Prime Minister. It is a long-established feature of our constitutional arrangements. The Prime Minister is ultimately responsible to Parliament, as he is in all matters, and to the people of the country for any nominations he makes.

Two events have served to shape that process. First, the House of Lords Act 1999 ended the right of hereditary peers to pass membership of the other place down through their families. Secondly, the House of Lords Appointments Commission was created in May 2000—under Labour, which now wishes to break it—and it recommends individuals for appointment as non-party political life peers, such as those on the Cross Benches, and has political representation from the three parties within its members. The vetting process is at the heart of its work. The commission seeks to ensure the highest standards of propriety, and I include party political nominees within that.

It does not apply in the instant case, but it should not be a matter of opprobrium that somebody be a party political supporter. Labour has hundreds of peers in the House of Lords. The Liberal Democrats have some 83 peers despite them having barely enough Members of Parliament to fill a minicab. There is nothing wrong with having a political affiliation.

The House of Lords Appointments Commission seeks advice from a number of sources during its deliberations. Any time we ask any independent advisory body to obtain advice, and it does so discreetly and in confidence, if we seek to break that process, said body will not be able to function. Once all the evidence has been considered, the commission will either advise the Prime Minister that it has no concerns about an appointment or will draw its concerns to the Prime Minister’s attention. It is a long-standing position that it is for the Prime Minister of the day to recommend appointments to the House of Lords. For that reason, the Prime Minister continues to place great weight on the commission’s careful and considered advice before making any recommendations. That arrangement has served successive Prime Ministers of both parties but, as in other areas, they must carefully balance a range of evidence.

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

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way to a Liberal Democrat, few as we are. Nevertheless, I draw his attention to another tweet from Lord Lebedev:

“Openness and transparency are pillars of our democratic system, so I welcome the call for security advice about me…to be released. I have nothing to hide.”

The Minister is highlighting the fact that the appointment was questioned by that commission, so I do not see his argument, because it sounds like there were concerns. If Lord Lebedev has nothing to hide and the commission made its recommendation, that prompts the question: what do the Government have to hide?

[Michael Ellis]

I thank the hon. Lady for asking that question. This is not about any one individual. The Opposition are seeking it to be about one individual who cannot answer for himself in this House, which is wrong. The Government are seeking to protect the system, so even if Lord Lebedev has said that he does not mind, it is not, with the greatest respect, only about him; this is about protecting the system, because the House of Lords Appointments Commission would not be able to function.

The Leader of the Opposition wrote to the commission earlier this month and received a reply a week or two ago, which I believe is in the public domain, in which it outlined the process and did not highlight any problems. The reality is that the Government are seeking to protect a system that has worked well for 22 years, so I ask the House to bear that in mind.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I have attended almost every debate we have had on an economic crime Bill up until this point. In my role as my party’s spokesperson on foreign affairs when the Navalny list first came out well over a year ago, I started to name some of the names, and I have since done that in a more comprehensive form. Every single time this issue has come to this place, it has generally been discussed in a cross-party spirit. If we possibly can, I really want us to elevate ourselves from where the debate has been so far. It is in everyone’s interest to root out even suggestions of corruption in our politics, in any form and undertaken by any party.

I put it to all Members that this issue is not easy for any party. Parties of all colours, of mixed colours and all the rest of it have at some point floated close to this. It is absolutely right that our free media asks questions and that this House is allowed to scrutinise. That is exactly what unpins the very thing that Putin does not want, which is democracy. I sincerely hope that in all that we are agreed.

Although on the face of it this debate is about process, I believe it to be a debate about questions and the fundamental integrity of those who take their places not just in this Chamber but in the other place. While we have a democracy—a democracy that the Intelligence and Security Committee suggests has been under the threat of Russian interference—it is right to ask questions about how someone may have reached a level at which they have influence and, indeed, the ability to vote on the law of this land.

I point out that the Liberal Democrats have long campaigned on this issue—indeed, every single Liberal Democrat Lord is signed up to losing their own job because we believe we should have an elected House of Lords. That is our proposal. Were that system in place, they would be appointed by their constituents—the voters of this country—and we would not be having these discussions, or at least not in this way. But that is not what currently happens, so let me come back to the process.

The problem with the appointment of Lord Lebedev is that our free media, with its ability to root around in these questions and shine light into the darkness, came across evidence to suggest that the Prime Minister overruled or bent—whatever it may be—the advice of the security services and the commission. The question being asked is why we are focusing on Lord Lebedev; well, because this has not happened in this way before. The advice of the commission was overruled one other time, and that was also by this Prime Minister—indeed, that was the first time—so there is form. That was the first time ever that a Prime Minister did that.

Let me put this all into context. Today, the Metropolitan police have issued fines for parties that the Prime Minister told us categorically from the Dispatch Box never happened. The problem is not the process; I argue that it seems the process is actually working. The commission makes recommendations based on what it heard from the security services. It seems that the problem might be the Prime Minister, which is why this debate is important. We have to separate the wheat from the chaff. To what extent is the process working—actually, I think it is—and to what extent have we had interference in our democracy at a number of levels, of which this is potentially one example? I say “potentially” because we just do not know. The purpose of the motion is to shed light. Let the truth be out.

I hear what the Minister said about the process somehow being denigrated. However, it sounds to me as though the process would be reinforced, because the process said that Lord Lebedev should not be given a peerage, and that therefore reinforces the need for the commission in the first place. It was just doing its job, which it did well, but it seems that the Prime Minister overruled it. He claims that he never did that, and there is a counter-claim by Dominic Cummings—let us all take that with the pinch of salt it absolutely deserves.

I think the Government should welcome the publication of this information. I have spoken to Government Members who want to see this come out. I am proudly in WhatsApp groups with Government Members who, like me, care about our democracy, who are trying to push through the economic crime legislation, who are frustrated that it took six years for part one to come and are desperate for part two, and who have spoken collectively and positively about what the Government are finally doing, for example, on SLAPPs—strategic lawsuits against public participation—and other issues. We are grasping the nettle and it will be difficult for all of us. However, the Government are somehow now standing at the Dispatch Box and twisting this into anything other than what it is, which is a cool-headed look at how our democracy has been functioning for decades and an understanding of how Russian interference has permeated, like a rot, through our economy, society and even our politics.

We all have to admit that this process is going to be difficult. I wish that the Government would admit that and say, “Yes, it will be difficult, but we are going to do this anyway because it is the right thing to do.” By looking into that Pandora’s box, they may well find things that they do not want to know about. The Government seem to be taking an ostrich mentality, and I kind of get it, except we are all here as custodians of our democracy, putting the country first. I genuinely think that any Government who chose to deal with this matter would be rewarded by the public for doing so, because they would be grateful, especially at a time of national crisis, when people and authoritarian regimes are seeking to undermine our democracy. There has never been a better time to root out of the evil of corruption, no matter where that leads.

Fundamentally, this is what needs to happen: we need not only all the information to be published, but an independent inquiry into what happened and how the Prime Minister was involved, or was not. I am genuinely sorry to say this, because it reflects on our whole country when we do not know if our Prime Minister is telling the truth or not, but we just do not know. In the same way that Sue Gray has rooted out what happened after the Prime Minister said that no parties ever took place, and they did—I am afraid that we cannot trust his word at this moment—we need an independent inquiry to verify whether or not he may have inadvertently misled the House previously. That is why this Humble Address is important: it will help, not hinder, the situation.

The other thing that I do not understand is why the Russia report recommendation to investigate and publish fully the extent of Russian interference in our democracy has not been carried out.

I will quote from the Intelligence and Security Committee’s report, because it is so important:

“Several members of the Russian elite who are closely linked to Putin are identified as being involved with charitable and/or political organisations in the UK, having donated to political parties, with a public profile which positions them to assist Russian influence operations. It is notable that a number of Members of the House of Lords have business interests linked to Russia, or work directly for major Russian companies linked to the Russian state—these relationships should be carefully scrutinised, given the potential for the Russian state to exploit them.”

I commend the speech of the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford), who hit the nail on the head. It is not necessarily a question of the words of Lord Lebedev, which other hon. Members have quoted; I fundamentally disagree with him, but there were Members of this House with the same views and it could be said that those views are genuinely held. That is fine, but the point is how the Russian state and particularly the oligarchs have acquired their money. I used to sit on the Public Accounts Committee, and we had a phrase: “Follow the money.” Following the money very often leads to where the power really lies.

The issue in this case is that the money has been used to buy access and influence. We know how these oligarchs operate: they do things that, on the face of it, look great. They quite often fundraise for causes that may publicly be different from what they are being told to do. It is very sophisticated. The face of corruption looks nice—it gives people champagne, it buys them nice things, it lets them have a good time. I am not suggesting straight out that that is what Lord Lebedev has done, but it is right that we ask questions, because that is the modus operandi of the entire oligarch system.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I would argue that the Ukraine invasion by Putin’s forces has brought sharply into view the extent of the involvement of Kremlin-linked people and organisations, not just in this country—although obviously we are concerned about this country—but across the west. As we speak with one voice on Ukraine, is it now time to speak with one voice on cleaning up British politics once and for all? If not now, when?

[Layla Moran]

I absolutely agree: now is the time. It is worth saying that that would not just apply to Russian oligarchs, because we know that other countries have sought to do the same thing. Investigating the extent of the interference in our democracy would set us up for a much stronger future, so I believe that this is the right motion at the right time.

I also argue that we should have rooted out the corruption years ago. In fact, it was a Conservative Prime Minister and a Conservative Chancellor who first suggested that at the Dispatch Box. I have said several times that it should not be this hard to implement a Conservative party manifesto promise. We are getting there, so, please, let us continue the cross-party spirit in how we go about rooting out corruption. That extends, I am afraid, to the dealings of Lord Lebedev as someone who is allowed to vote on this country’s laws—the one oligarch who seems to have been allowed to do that. I urge the House to back the motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Layla Moran]

rose—

[Michael Ellis]

I am conscious of the time, but I will give way.

[Layla Moran]

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way. All those things are very laudable, but will he enlighten the House on how many of the recommendations to the Government in the Russia report have been implemented?

[Michael Ellis]

That has nothing to do with this matter, as I am sure the hon. Lady well knows. I reiterate that we must ensure the ability of the House of Lords Appointments Commission to conduct robust vetting, and to provide advice that is not compromised. That process should continue. I have heard hon. Members say that certain individuals do not mind if detail of the vetting process is disclosed as far as it concerns them. Well, I reiterate that this is not about any one individual. If someone wishes to show that they have nothing to hide, that is laudable and understandable, but we need to protect the process for all. This is not about one individual; it is about protecting the integrity of the system—a system that serves this nation very well. The process should continue to be conducted confidentially, and disclosure should be at the discretion of the Prime Minister.

Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation

Layla Moran Excerpts

Thursday 17th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I mentioned the European figures; it is clearly a much broader phenomenon. One of the things that we have looked at is the threshold. To give an illustration of a jurisdiction that we have looked at, in the United States, there needs to be malice, I think, for most libel cases. Under the US constitution, there are a whole series of judicially enforceable rights that are probably stronger than in this country under the European convention on human rights or otherwise in relation to free speech. We will look carefully at the bespoke libel laws that we have and we are mindful of the lessons that we can learn from other jurisdictions.

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

I welcome the statement and especially the Justice Secretary’s words about it being the tip of the iceberg. I was caught up in the issue when Navalny released his list and I named Abramovich in this House as someone who we needed to look at sanctioning. I then tried to do a follow-up story with a newspaper but, lo and behold, the lawyers got involved and the newspaper never printed it. I wonder how many such stories that shed sunlight on our democracy have been stifled.

The Justice Secretary will know, however, that it is not just oligarchs who do that. For example, Sienna Miller said that she had to stop her case against the News Corp newspapers in December because she could not afford to continue to take the case to court. Will the legislation cover not just the oligarchs who desperately need looking at but anyone who seeks to use the law to silence the truth?

[Dominic Raab]

Yes. Whatever other differences we have had over the years, I pay tribute to the hon. Lady’s campaigning tenacity on the issue. I think she is right. Of course, although we have oligarchs and Ukraine in mind, it would need to be something that applied across the board.

Sanctions

Layla Moran Excerpts

Tuesday 1st March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

I completely agree about the need for effectiveness. A point has been made today about the slow pace of the designation of some individuals and entities. The Government have rightly talked about moving in lockstep with our allies, particularly in the EU, yet we still seem to be off pace in naming individuals—we seem to be moving more slowly. Some of the individuals that we have mentioned have already been sanctioned by the US and others for years or do not have significant assets in the UK. We need to ensure that our measures are meaningful, immediate, effective, deep and robust, and that individuals are not now sweeping their money and assets out of the UK.

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

What I found a bit disappointing about the Minister’s speech was its tone. We are all on the same side and trying to help, but there is still a question: why are we lagging behind? Is it that the legislation needs strengthening—I hope the Minister can see that across the House we are willing to work weekends to do that with the Government—or is it something else? He has not adequately explained why we still have not sanctioned individuals who are named by other jurisdictions.

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Lady makes an important point. The Minister can be assured of our co-operation in getting these measures through quickly. He has already heard some suggestions for ways in which we might name individuals more quickly; I hope we will hear back from him about them.

We believe that we need to go further to widen financial and banking sectoral measures beyond Sberbank. My second question is about whether the Minister can explain why measures on corresponding banks have not been applied to all Russian financial institutions today, rather than just to Sberbank. Indeed, we understand that the measures have been expanded to include sovereign debt. The Opposition have called for that to apply to UK subsidiaries of entities as well. Will the Minister confirm the position?

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

It is a privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge). I will talk a little about enablers, but it might be helpful to talk a little about oligarchs as well, and I will try, just from my own experiences, having lived in Ukraine and having tried to keep abreast of what was happening in the Soviet Union when I lived there and since, to talk also about the role of oligarchs in Russian hybrid war. I will talk a little about the statutory instruments and give them some context, if that will be helpful.

I think it is pretty depressing that it has taken a major war in Europe for us to take economic crime seriously. We have been waiting on this Bill since 2018, and there is no excuse why it has not been on the statute book for 20 years, frankly. Previous Conservative Governments have failed—I am delighted that this Government are doing the right thing; I am not criticising this one—previous coalition Governments have failed and, frankly, previous Labour Governments have failed. I just do not understand how we have got ourselves into the mess we are in now.

Obviously I am going to support these regulations, the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Bill and whatever else the Government put up, but I stress to them that this is the beginning of a cleaning up of our legal system and finance system—this is not an end, but a start. We do not know how much money has flowed through our country using offshore accounts or Companies House. Our banks were not responsible for this corrupt flow of wealth—some of the worst in history. It was the Danish, German and Swedish banks that were responsible for that, but it is UK companies that they used.

I also say to the Minister that, as well as the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Bill, we need a foreign lobbying Bill and amendments to libel law and data protection law. We need to do more on SLAPPs—strategic lawsuits against public participation—where aggressive lawyers seek to intimidate campaigning groups, journalists and the like. We also need an espionage Bill.

We must toughen up the Solicitors Regulation Authority. I am told by whistleblowers working for the big companies that they do not do proper client checks and that “know your client” checks are non-existent for some of them. Some actually have a list of people that they specifically do not do those checks on because they know that they are inherently corrupt and inherently criminal. What on earth has happened to some of the major legal firms in this country that means that they specifically avoid “know your client” checks because they know that they will have to turn that client down if they do because those clients are corrupt, criminal or linked to organised crime? I am afraid to say that that is pretty shocking.

I note that some oligarchs are now distancing themselves from President Putin. Fridman, Deripaska and Abramovich have all come out with rather woolly statements in the last couple of days. I am sorry, but I don’t buy it.

[Layla Moran]

Does the hon. Gentleman not find that it rather sticks in the throat that Mr Abramovich has been going around saying that he is an envoy of peace and claiming that he is somehow brokering peace between Ukraine and Russia, given his former involvement in the matter?

[Bob Seely]

The hon. Lady brings me to a point about how oligarchs work. To go back to Ukraine, somebody such as Dmitry Firtash, who is now wanted by the Americans, was set up by Gazprom and Putin. He was given sweetheart deals to import vast amounts of cheap energy into Ukraine. The vast profits that he garnered from those sweetheart deals gave him a good life but, more importantly, he funnelled that money into buying up chunks of east Ukrainian industry, effectively as a front for the FSB, the former KGB. Critically, he also used it to purchase politicians and to fund the pro-Russian political parties in eastern Ukraine.

When it comes to oligarchs, therefore, it is important to understand that we are talking about an economic model within hybrid war. Of all the tools of hybrid war, if hon. Members read the Russian characteristics of war, they will see that the first characteristic of the Russian military doctrine is that there is an integrated military and non-military strategy. So they have their troops, paramilitaries, front organisations or assassins, but with that they have the politics, economics, culture, religion and even sport—sport matters very much.

When it comes to oligarchs, we are talking about not just obscenely rich people who are mates with somebody, but a structure of control and power, whether that is in eastern Ukraine or in the United Kingdom, primarily to facilitate vast money flows to tax havens or to intimidate and silence the western media into not reporting on those people. There are a series of outcomes to that, so I thank the hon. Lady for the intervention.

I return to Abramovich, Fridman and Deripaska. If they were so keen to smarten up their act—they are clearly scared of what might happen—I would like to know why, as of only a few weeks ago, they and their London lawyers were all abusing data protection Acts or libel law to target and intimidate individuals, such as Chris Steele and Catherine Belton, HarperCollins and others. At the end of last year and even this year, they have continued to intimidate a free press. They were enabled, and I make the point that it is not only the oligarchs but their millionaire servant class of enablers who enable the billionaire class of oligarchs who enable the neo-fascism that we see in Europe.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson). To pick up his point at a moment of reflection, we are all tired because yesterday we were here until late voting, but I walked into work this morning with a spring in my step because we have a democracy to walk into work for. We are here in this debate in defence of another democracy, and what a debate it has been. My goodness, would Russia not be a very different place if it allowed this level of discourse and challenge from both sides of the House and of the Government? That is what we are defending.

I wish to put on record my delight—I hope the whole House will join me in this—in congratulating the Servant of the People party, the party of Volodymyr Zelensky, which has become an associate member of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe. It marks the first step—one of many, I am sure—to show that the entire reason why Putin has done this, to try to split us apart, is not working and quite the opposite is happening. The Liberal Democrats are therefore proud to call the Servant of the People party our sister party, and I am sure all hon. Members feel that way about that party and all parties in Ukraine.

In that spirit of cross-party co-operation, I welcome these measures on behalf of the Liberal Democrat party. It is right that we are targeting the Russian financial sector and the export of dual-use and critical-use goods. I ask again about the 30-day grace period. One of the benefits of speaking last is that I waited for those who are much more practised in such things—a former Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, and others—to explain to me, a relatively new Member, what I did not understand. But I still do not understand. If we are not going to publish the names, even quietly, and assuming they do not leak, and if we cannot say who we are sanctioning and who is on that designated list, I do not understand how we can distinguish between a company that is legitimately winding up its business, and one that is winding up its illicit goods to go somewhere else. How do we do that without divulging that list to someone? I would like some explanation for that.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Does the hon. Lady think it strange that the Government are reluctant to name the individuals they are going to sanction? Our European partners are not only sanctioning individuals, but taking property off them and naming them publicly. Does she understand why the Government are reluctant to do that?

[Layla Moran]

I am so grateful for that intervention, and I absolutely do not understand. I intervened about that at the beginning of the debate. I have listened to the whole debate and am none the wiser, having listened to many sage Members also try to work it out. I think we are owed an explanation from the Minister. He went away for a bit but he has come back, I hope with an explanation. What is going on? We have the benefit of parliamentary privilege in this place. I will not pre-empt what Mr Speaker may or may not allow in future business of the House, but if we need to sit here and read out all the names, we have to do it. But it should not be up to us, and a lot of the names are ones that the Government already have. The information is there, and there is no reason we should be waiting.

Some of the new names on the EU sanction list include Mikhail Fridman, Alisher Usmanov, Petr Aven, Igor Sechin, and Nikolay Tokarev—they are there. There is now a joint taskforce for sharing information, which is good. Apparently it always existed, so I did not quite understand the announcement—perhaps it is being shared more. However, if we look at the number of people we have sanctioned recently, it is nine, one of whom is Putin, which we all know is just symbolic. We can go further.

I disagree with the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), who said that these measures will not do very much. They will do quite a lot, because we know that is how Putin manages his money. If we go after these people, we are going after him. That is how he operates. The broader point, which it is important to make, is that it feels as if, because of the tragedy unfolding before our eyes, the wool is being pulled from many people’s eyes. I fully congratulate Members across the House who have been raising these points over many years and indeed across many countries.

Our own reports have also warned about this, not least the Russia report, which states:

“This level of integration—in “Londongrad” in particular—means that any measures now being taken by the Government are not preventative but rather constitute damage limitation… The links of the Russian elite to the UK…provides access to UK companies and political figures and thereby a means for broad Russian influence in the UK. To a certain extent, this cannot be untangled.”

How did we get here? That was the question that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) posed in his excellent speech. I will posit an answer. I think it was greed, and not just from one political party; it was a collective greed, and a wilful naivety to what has been in front of us. All the signs were there, and there was a collective wilful naivety for the sake of rapid economic growth and actually some very laudable aims—trade, for example, being a tool of diplomacy. We want to support business and the City. All those things can be true at the same time, but there came a moment when some people sniffed a rat and they did not call the exterminator. That was many years ago.

I think it was the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) who described this as a cancer. As we know, removing a cancer is painful to the person who has it—it can even be dangerous—but the reason we do so is for the person’s medium and long-term health. We have to do this, so I end simply by urging the Minister not to shy away from the difficult questions, or from things that are not coming in the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Bill and the overseas entities register, and to deal with some of the issues of lawfare, or at least put a framework in place in order to deal with them.

How can it be right, if transparency is the best disinfectant, that we do not allow our free press and media to investigate individuals and companies, because they are being consistently harassed? That is bad for democracy, so I hope to add my voice to all of those on the Back Benches in the debate. I urge the Minister, and the Government, to grasp this nettle, as painful as it may be. If he wants to go further and faster, the Liberal Democrats will support him.

Ukraine

Layla Moran Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd February 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the Baltic states and Poland. As he knows, in Poland we have increased our support with another 350 Royal Marines from 45 Commando, and in Estonia we have doubled our presence in Tapa to 2,000. We are doing more in the high north, as well as in Romania and elsewhere, and we will continue to keep all these projects under constant review, but we and other European countries are stiffening the eastern frontier of NATO.

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

Five banks and three of Putin’s cronies are being sanctioned, but two of those have already been sanctioned by the United States. This is not us working in concert—this is us already behind. The Prime Minister has said that there will be more sanctions to come, so can he be clear with us: what is the trigger?

[The Prime Minister]

I think it inevitable that there will be more sanctions to come, because I am afraid I think it inevitable that Vladimir Putin will continue his flagrant violation of international law. What we are doing today is the first barrage that we are orchestrating in concert with our friends and partners, while keeping something in reserve, because there must still be the possibility that we can avert a hideous outbreak of bloodshed in Ukraine.

Speaker’s Statement

Layla Moran Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

It is a privilege and an honour to speak today about Jack, who I am proud to call my friend and colleague in this place. He was my parliamentary neighbour, as his constituency inside Birmingham city ran alongside the royal town of Sutton Coldfield, and there were many mutual issues affecting our constituents, on which we worked seamlessly, constructively and enjoyably together.

Jack’s arrival in Birmingham was somewhat unexpected, not least because those of us keenly watching the outcome of the selection contest had been advised that this was an all-women shortlist, but we quickly established a rapport. The thing I learnt early on about Jack was that he was a brilliant negotiator. Faced with a brick wall, his instinct was not to pound his way through it, but to skilfully manoeuvre around it wherever possible. And he was ineffably charming and patient. He had a considerable knack locally of bringing people of different persuasions to common positions. He did it at times of great anxiety in the automotive industry in the west midlands with Caroline Spelman, our former colleague from Meriden, with West Midlands Mayor Andy Street and, most recently, with me working on Afghans coming to Birmingham from Kabul.

All of which leads me, finally, to a story about Jack’s negotiating powers and—forgive me for name dropping, Mr Speaker—about his relationship with the Marquis of Salisbury, a former colleague in this place, Conservative Minister and Member for South Dorset, Robert Cranbourne. When his lordship was a Defence Minister, he held regular meetings with the unions in Whitehall. These meetings sometimes ran for four hours and meaningful results were slow in being achieved, but during particularly drawn-out moments the Marquis, as he is now, would catch the eye of the then senior trade union negotiator, as he then was, Jack Dromey. After one such meeting, his lordship rang up Jack to suggest that it would perhaps be better if they sorted out the business beforehand, possibly over lunch, and, to Robert’s relief, Jack willingly agreed. “Where should we go?” asked Jack, to which the Marquis replied, “I wonder if you might like to come to White’s, my club in St. James’s,” to which Jack replied, “Ah, I’ve always wanted to go there.”

And so affairs of state and the Ministry of Defence were congenially sorted out by these two distinguished public servants. On the first occasion, as various chiselled-featured members of the British establishment walked through the club’s hallowed portals, Jack drank orange juice, but on the final occasion, after a particularly successful negotiation had been concluded, glasses of vintage port were consumed. As he stepped out on to the street, Jack thanked his lordship for his kind hospitality, and as he left said over his shoulder, “By the way, please don’t tell Harriet where we’ve been. And especially do not mention the vintage port!” [Laughter.] For the avoidance of doubt, Mr Speaker, I can of course confirm that this was a workplace event. [Laughter.]

As we remember an adopted son of Birmingham taken from us far, far too soon, let us remember the words of Harry, Jack and Harriet’s son, who with both sadness and pride spoke of the quality, but not alas the quantity, of the years they all had together.

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

To the tributes already paid, I add the profound sympathies of both myself and all the Liberal Democrats who sit on these Benches. As a relatively new Member of the Commons, I confess that I did not know Jack that well, but what I did know I really, really liked.

I first met him in a mindfulness meditation class, which he, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) and I attended with other MPs as we sought to find some calm in the storm of the 2017 to 2019 Parliament. I dare say that it was, at times, hilariously awkward. I remember Jack taking those classes with great humour. He oozed wisdom and kindness, and I think it was that shared experience that meant that, when we caught each other’s eye while passing each other in the Lobby, he would ask how I was, and he really meant it. Since his passing, I have learned that that kind man, whom I liked so much, had a similar effect on pretty much everyone he met. The tributes today are proof of how respected he was across the political spectrum. While a trade union man through and through, he was a pragmatist. He would work with anyone who could deliver his aims and shared his values.

Part of Jack’s appeal and great strength was that he was so obviously driven by his values and by a deep desire to help people. Quite simply, Jack Dromey was one of the good guys. I think it says it all that he worked to the last. In that final debate on Afghanistan, he urged Parliament and the Government to take a more compassionate approach to those in the world who need us the most and said:

“Our country has a proud history of providing a safe haven to those fleeing persecution.”

He also spoke of our country’s most fundamental values

“of decency, honesty and fairness.”—[Official Report, 6 January 2022; Vol. 706, c. 129WH.]

Jack embodied those values.

To the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham, to their children, Harry, Joe and Amy, and to the whole family, there are no words, but I hope that from today’s tributes they can take some comfort in knowing the impact that Jack had and how he affected not just this House but the whole country.

[Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)]

Jack made a big impression as soon as he was elected to this place in 2010 and was appointed to the Front Bench straight away. I was a rookie Minister and he was my shadow. It was a forbidding prospect because Jack came with such a reputation, as the Leader of the Opposition attested, as one of the big trade union leaders of his day, used to rallying mass meetings and getting his own way. It was with a little trepidation that I committed myself to going head-to-head with him for many weeks in Committee for what became the Localism Act 2011.

However, I was quickly to discover that Jack’s success was based, as evidenced today, on his charm, persuasion and forensic mind. He had a tremendous impact as we spent those many weeks together. In fact, so persuasive was Jack’s oratory and work in Committee that, much to the Whip’s consternation, he incited my first rebellion—as the Minister taking the Bill through Committee! [Laughter.] His remarks were so persuasive that I could find no argument against his amendment and declared that I would accept it, and we did, despite the fact, as former and current Ministers will know, that my speaking notes had “RESIST” in bold type. It is objective to say that Jack’s powers were simply, literally, irresistible.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) attested to Jack’s brilliant work in forging alliances irrespective of party. He mentioned the work that Jack did with our former right hon. Friend Dame Caroline Spelman, his constituency neighbour. They stood up in particular for manufacturing industry interests that created jobs in their constituencies and across the west midlands. That joint work was vital during turbulent times; when investment decisions were being considered, showing the unity of purpose of the local MPs projected nationally was very important.

Jack’s lifetime of knowledge, experience and passion for manufacturing industry made him an authority, carrying universal respect and the confidence of employers creating jobs. I was therefore honoured when Jack asked me, after Caroline stepped down at the last election, to continue that partnership with him. We met regularly with businesses and trade union leaders, not only in his beloved automotive sector, but in aerospace, chemicals, life sciences and food and drink. He is greatly missed by the leaders of those sectors.

Ministers from the Front Bench and my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), as well as the Prime Minister, have attested to what an effective advocate Jack was. He achieved what he did through kindness, enthusiasm, optimism and encouragement, but not without drawing on his trade union skills of organisation and tenacity. His achievements and how he won them made him respected across this House and across the country. He represents, as does the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), the very best of this House.

Sue Gray Report

Layla Moran Excerpts

Monday 31st January 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I will be speaking to President Putin as soon as I can.

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

I have read the report in full, and I think this is the most striking sentence:

“There were failures of leadership and judgment by different parts of No 10 and the Cabinet Office at different times.”

My constituents have been writing to me while the Prime Minister has been speaking to say that he should resign, but they also want to know the full facts. Once the Met has concluded, why could he not then publish the full, unredacted report?

[The Prime Minister]

We will have to see where the police get to, we will have to see the conclusion of their inquiry, and we will have to see what the legal position is then.