International Special Tribunal: Ukraine

Debate between Layla Moran and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 3rd September 2024 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon]

My hon. Friend always speaks words of wisdom, and those words are appropriate for where we are. I am not smarter than anybody else—I never profess to be—but many of us at that time thought we needed to stand up to what was happening in Crimea. We did not. I am not blaming anybody for that; it is just a fact of where we were. If we had done it then, the attacks in Donbas would not have happened with the same level of ferocity. We need to be clear on where we stand and what we are trying to do.

Like others, I have a thriving Ukrainian population in my constituency. The previous Government’s policy of letting in Ukrainians was very clear; I welcome what they did. I am pleased, by the way, to see the Minister in her place, and I look forward to her response. I do not mean to give her a big head, but she has shown a lot of confidence in the Chamber in the last few days and many of us have been impressed by how she has responded to questions. I am also pleased to see the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns), in her place. She and I have been friends ever since she has been here, and we look forward to her contribution.

I am happy to have helped many Ukrainians in my constituency of Strangford with visas for their time staying here, and with jobs and places in school. Ballynahinch high school in Strangford has greatly embraced Ukrainians; it has a class of specifically Ukrainian students coming from families who work in the businesses around Ballynahinch and further afield. It has teachers, classroom assistants and domestic staff from Ukraine. That is what they are doing in Ballynahinch.

I have probably talked to my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry about this, but our intention is to have an event in September, or certainly in October if we are spared. The principal of Ballynahinch high school, Paul Marks, wants to organise an event where the chefs will make the meals and the pupils will serve the tables, but the guests will be those of Ukrainian descent living in Northern Ireland. I think it is a great thing to do; I know others have done it across their constituencies. It is a way of encouraging those Ukrainians and showing that they are very much in our thoughts.

I welcome the debate. Again, I thank the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth for bringing it to the Floor to highlight not simply the plight of the Ukrainian people, but the fact that there is an onus on us all to call this issue out for what it is and take the appropriate international steps. The UN General Assembly in 1974 agreed the definition of aggression in article 1—and my goodness, we watch it every day with Russia against Ukraine. It lists some of the acts that could amount to aggression, and we could say that every one of them has happened yesterday in Ukraine or the day before that, because they have. Those acts include invasion, occupation or annexation of another state’s territory, bombardment of another state’s territory, blockades of ports or coasts, and attacks by one armed force against another. Russia is guilty of all those.

It is important to say this sometimes when we are blaming Russia. There are many good people in Russia who do not subscribe to what has happened, but they are not often heard because of the oppression that happens there. Sometimes it is good to remind ourselves that not all Russians are bad.

[Layla Moran]

I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for saying that. I speak to our sister party, Yabloko, on a regular basis using forms of communication that it deems safe at the time. Over and over again, its brave protesters have ended up in jail. Some have had death threats, and they describe their own horror at what Putin is doing. They are keen to say that he does not speak for them but they find themselves completely silenced, so I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. Does he agree that we should do more to raise their voices in this Parliament?

[Jim Shannon]

I do. When the Minister responds, perhaps she can give us some indication of what can be done to help those groups in Russia, as much as we can without drawing attention to them. I am conscious that it is easy for me to comment standing here in Westminster Hall, but if the Russian people we are encouraging take a stand, that may be detrimental to their future wellbeing. I am conscious of what we do, but the Minister may indicate some way in which we can do something.

It is abundantly clear that even in the most broad terms, Russia is guilty of aggression. The question is what we do with that information. This debate is an opportunity to show solidarity with Ukrainians, and to stand alongside Ukrainians both here at home and in Ukraine. Do we continue to sit on the sidelines and direct a few anti-tank missiles their way? The ones that we produce at Thales in Northern Ireland have been to the detriment of the Russian armoury, and they have been effective in every way. What makes them even more effective is that the Ukrainians have been able to adapt those weapons to take the threat and the battle straight to Russia.

I have had the opportunity, together with my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), to visit Thales—I know that we cannot talk about some of the things we were told, so I am not saying them. However, we can see, through their bravery and courage, what the Ukrainian soldiers can do with the right weaponry. So do we send another aid package, which will help in the short term but will not end this aggression? Or do we step up and stand with the Ukrainians to push back against the actions of Putin and his regime, and allow the country to rebuild?

Along with others in this House, and as a Christian, I regularly pray for the Ukrainians, and pray that God will deliver them. Simply put, I believe that that can happen, and that is why we lift those prayers to the God who answers them. I am always minded of the story in the Bible of David and Goliath; I suggest that Ukraine is clearly the David and Russia is clearly the Goliath—and we know what happened in that battle. We pray that this battle will be one that Ukraine will win.

It has long been my opinion that we should be doing more. That is not a criticism of anybody—I do not mean it that way. I just mean to ask: what more can we do? I believe there are things we can do collectively. We can encourage the Minister, our Government and our Prime Minister to take the stand that the Ukrainians wish us to take. I believe we should be doing more, and I will use the debate introduced by the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth to hammer home that point.

If we have an international tribunal to report what we already know to be true, it follows that we must do more than what we are doing. I am minded also of the genocide that Russian soldiers have carried out against the Ukrainians—the murder of innocent people—as well as the sexual abuse of many women and young girls. I actually find it quite difficult to even imagine—indeed, I do not want to imagine—some of the things that have happened. Abuse has been carried out against children as young as eight and women as old as 80 by Russian monsters; that is what they are.

Like the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth, I want there to be accountability. That is what everyone across this House asks for today: to have that accountability. Whoever those people are and wherever they want to hide, there will be no hiding place for them if we have anything to do with it.

I make this plea also as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief. I have done it before—I did it way back at the time of Crimea, because I knew what was happening there. I am a member of the Baptist church, which does not make me any smarter or any better than anybody else, but it does give me access to some of the information that flows back. In the Donbas region, some Baptist pastors have gone missing and churches have been destroyed. There is a catalogue of hate, human rights abuse, physical torture and murder by Russians against people with a different religious viewpoint from that of the Orthodox Church. I am not being critical of those of the Orthodox Church; I am just making the point that there is no accountability. People have gone missing and we do not know where they are; I suspect they are no longer in this world. Again, that underlines that Russia has a lot to answer for.

It follows that the international community must determine together that the days of sitting on the sidelines are done and that attempts not to anger Putin must end. Putin must understand that his attempted invasion of Ukraine has failed and that he must withdraw his troops. His people must look to rebuilding their own nation, which he has ravaged with this war. It is not only the Ukrainians who deserve peace, as the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) said in her intervention—let us remember that the good people of Russia also deserve that. We must help them to achieve it as well. If there was a change of Government in Russia, it would undoubtedly bring peace within the region and let people have a life again.

In conclusion, I welcome this debate. More than that, I would welcome a determination by the UN. With every single ally determining that such action is taken, the message sent to China, North Korea and any other despotic regime would be that the UN is not a talking shop. Their guilt will make them accountable. I support the people of Ukraine and of Russia, and the motion we are debating. Let us call this what it is, and get the work that needs to be done finished—the quicker, the better.

Strategy for International Development

Debate between Layla Moran and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 6th July 2022 Commons Chamber

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

I start by thanking the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) for securing this incredibly important debate. Notwithstanding whatever state the Government may be in now—the latest apparently being that they cannot find MPs to fill the roles of all the Ministers who have resigned—this incredibly important debate shows that Parliament continues to work, even if the Government do not.

Last week, we debated the Government’s thoroughly un-British plan to go back on their word and break their promise over the Northern Ireland protocol. Today we must remind ourselves that this is another promise, made right at the beginning of the Prime Minister’s premiership, that has been broken. I found the remarks of the Prime Minister interesting when he said, clearly in relation to the right hon. Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher), that some people do not change. I am afraid that is what we have seen in this Prime Minister as well, because he has not, and the decisions that this Government have made are wrecking our reputation, not just domestically, but internationally, too, whether that is the diplomatic service, the BBC World Service, the British Council, or, as has rightly been the focus of the debate today, the international development budget.

The Liberal Democrats are particularly proud that we brought forward the Bill that enshrined 0.7% in law, but it was a cross-party, settled matter among MPs across the whole House. It was in all our manifestos, and we collectively promised it. That promise to the British people was broken by this Government when they reneged on 0.7%, and shame on them. Perhaps the good that will come from the eventual, inevitable fall of this Prime Minister is that decency and honesty might be restored to this Government. I hope therefore that the first act of the new incoming Administration might be to restore the aid budget immediately.

Today I want to focus on this Government’s current mishandling of the aid budget. The cut to the budget has hit and continues to hit those countries who need it most, including Ethiopia. The House may not know, but I lived in Ethiopia. We moved there when I was five, and we were there until I was eight. It was in the early ’80s, and people may remember the famine. We were there because my father had been given the job of economic adviser to the European mission out there, and my earliest memories of life at all are going with him to aid projects, where I would meet little children of my age who were emaciated, did not have clean water and were not able to go to school. It is a success story of aid that many of those children down the line, and their children, would have had better prospects than perhaps the young children I met.

In the context of the war in Ethiopia, the aid budget has been slashed from £325 million in 2020-21 to £30 million in 2024-25—less than a tenth. In Bangladesh, the budget will have halved from £200 million in 2020-21 to just £100 million in 2024-25. Those cuts are not a proud record of global leadership in international development; they are an international disgrace that is affecting the most vulnerable now more than ever.

Since the Government reneged on their promise, we have found ourselves with a war in Ukraine, which means that the 400 million people worldwide who rely on Ukrainian food supplies cannot get them. That ongoing military crisis—the blockade of ports, the destruction of agricultural machinery and the shells strewn across fields—is preventing grain from leaving what is rightly named the breadbasket of the world. That crisis will lead to people dying and to further instability.

I also lived in Egypt for a while; we moved there right after the revolution. The reason that the Arab spring happened was the price of tomatoes and bread. That kind of poverty and economic instability lead to political instability. To the points that have been made on both sides of the House I would say that if we are intent on helping people so that they do not have to flee and come to our shores as refugees, the best investment that we can make is to give money to partners abroad that can help them to have the best possible life where they want to be—in their cultures, in their homes, in those countries. Of course we want 0.7% to be restored, and the Ukraine crisis is why it should be restored now. In the light of that crisis, we need to step up to the plate—to the global catastrophe in front of us.

There may be hope. The latest Office for Budget Responsibility forecast reveals that a return of 0.7% is on the cards, because the fiscal tests of the old Chancellor are due to be met in 2023-24—less than a year away. Now that that decision has been made, however, it does not give me hope that the Treasury will acknowledge that 0.7% will return, because every time it has been pressed, it has refused to say whether it will allow it in the autumn. By its own tests, it should be in this autumn’s Budget that we return to 0.7%, but as has been mentioned, that promise was made by the last Chancellor. As of today, we have a new Chancellor; perhaps he will do the right thing and restore 0.7%.

International development was a proud thing for this country to hang its hat on, which matched our proud reputation as a development superpower. If the Government were serious about global Britain—Great Britain—they would lean into that reputation. It had its own Department and Secretary of State with a dedicated seat at the Cabinet table and at the National Security Council. The United Kingdom is a centre for excellence for international development and we are home to institutions that deliver world-leading research and development technical expertise and project co-ordination.

Yet the international development strategy makes it clear how far we have already fallen. After reading it, it was interesting and instructive to do a little word search. If the point of international aid is to alleviate poverty—the Government’s stated aim—why was it mentioned only nine times? Investment, however, particularly linked to trade, was mentioned 48 times. That tells us everything that we need to know about the Government’s priorities.

When the Government announced their plan to merge the Department for International Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office into the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, Members on both sides of the House joined forces with the sector to raise concerns about what that would mean for effectiveness. I am sorry to say that that fear has come true.

The strategy prioritises bilateral aid over multilateral aid. This is fundamentally counter to the liberal ideal of working within international structures to solve the world’s problems. It should be “and”, not “or”—not multilateral or bilateral, but both. Multilaterals, including the United Nations, are very often the first to be able to get there on the ground with dedicated teams. In times of urgent humanitarian crises, it is very often specialist teams from such multilateral organisations that can deliver the big asks needed for rebuilding, so I am deeply concerned about how this policy will impact on the UK’s ability to respond to emerging disasters, in particular.

If we are serious about tackling poverty, inequality and vulnerability across the world, it is also essential that trade is distributed where it is most needed—not where it is most likely to benefit us; that is wrong. Trade is an important part of why we do aid, but it should never be the whole reason. Trade is important, of course, and so is aid, but tying one to the other, as is the direction of travel, is the wrong approach. I remain highly concerned by this Government’s approach, which may be leading us down a dark path towards tied aid. If people want a story about what that looked like, they should look at the corruption surrounding the Pergau dam. If we say, “Well, we legislated against that”, look what the Government are doing with their own legislation: they just throw it out the window when they think it is the right time.

[Jim Shannon]

I wholeheartedly agree with what the hon. Lady says. I am very conscious that in many of the countries my constituents have relationships with—Zimbabwe, Swaziland and Malawi, to give just three examples—there are NGOs and church groups on the ground, and they understand where the real needs are. Sometimes, it is better to feed in to the knowledge of the people on the ground about where the real needs are to ensure that aid gets through. Would that be an example of what the Government should be trying to do?

[Layla Moran]

I thank the hon. Member very much for his intervention. I have seen this in the Ukraine crisis with a charity I know that operates in Moldova. The smaller charities are often very nimble and can use their knowledge straightaway on the ground. However, this needs to be “and”, not “or”. They cannot do it all; they have to do it in partnership with the multilaterals. Taking from one and not feeding into the other is the wrong approach.

In my view, the international development strategy emphasises short-term quick wins and overlooks the deeper causes of poverty and vulnerability. I will pick one specific example about women and girls, who are purportedly a priority in this strategy. The strategy claims that the Government

“intend to restore funding for this vital work.”

I ask the Minister to clarify what exactly she and the Government mean by “restore”, and to what level. This is not just about funding for schools. If we do not fund period poverty plans, sexual health plans and water plans, we find that women and girls are the first ones to start making up the gap.

There should not just be a snappy headline with the three Es of education, empowerment and ending violence against women and girls. Those are pointless unless they are followed up behind by things that are actually going to make a difference. I pay tribute again to the hon. Member for Rotherham and her Committee, because her use of privilege to make public the equalities report showed that the Government knew that their cuts were going to affect women, girls and minorities the most—and yet they have the brass neck to suggest in this strategy that it is their priority. This is the typical doublespeak we have come to rely on from this Government. To see what the Government are actually doing, look at what they say they are doing best. By and large, people will probably find that it is the thing the Government are doing worst.

NDAs: Universities

Debate between Layla Moran and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 29th June 2022 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Lady for securing this debate on something that is often discussed and seen in the papers. It is something that, unfortunately, happens in universities right across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Does she agree that universities have been aware of the problem and the potential for mischief with non-disclosure agreements for some time now, and yet the necessary safeguarding has not been put in place? Now is the time for the Minister to take the steps that universities have thus far refused to put in place to protect staff and students alike.

[Layla Moran]

I could not agree more. There are now movements in place—I will come to those in a moment—but they are far too slow, and by the time that they come into force all the young women who are affected have moved on.

Gagging clauses have significant emotional and psychological effects on the survivor. Young women who have just suffered a traumatic ordeal are then presented with what looks like a sophisticated legal contract, written by their superiors who control the fate of their degrees. The fact that these contracts are not legally enforceable does not really matter. How on earth can a vulnerable university student know that? I am not sure I would either.

The imbalance of power between the institution and the victim is huge. We must understand that this issue is not with the no-contact agreements themselves. They actually contain important safety and security measures that survivors stressed they wanted in place. Those measures are what makes it all the more challenging to object to the gagging clause. As Lucy said, survivors feel they have no choice but to sign in order to protect themselves.

The perception of a lack of choice and the coercion to sign against their instincts and wishes is the issue I hope to address today. Expecting a young person who is in extreme psychological distress to challenge staff at their university and then seek to renegotiate a contract that contains important safety measures is absurd. We would not expect it of ourselves, and we certainly should not expect it of them.

That is why I have written to all 39 Oxford colleges, asking them to sign this pledge against the use of non-disclosure agreements in the cases of sexual harassment, abuse or misconduct. I am pleased to report that three colleges—Lady Margaret Hall, Keble and Linacre—have now done so. I express cautious optimism that a number of colleges have made their own statements, albeit not signed the pledge. I urge colleges that are reluctant to sign the pledge or have concerns about it to meet me to discuss it.

University is a stepping stone between childhood and adulthood. It is supposed to be a place of safety and security—a home away from home. It is where young people learn how to behave as an adult and how they can expect to be treated. My fear is that these young women are being taught that their voice and their pain is less important that the institution’s reputation.

Signing the pledge is a no-brainer, but it should be only the beginning of the work that needs to be done to stamp out this deeply deplorable practice. In my view, the pledge does not go far enough. Students have expressed concerns that colleges and universities will sign up to it and then sneak clauses into agreements like no-contact agreements and argue that it does not actually constitute a no-disclosure agreement. Clarification on that point from the Minister would be really helpful.

There is also no real consequence of breaking the pledge. Can’t Buy My Silence provides a platform to report breaches of the pledge, with the only listed sanction being the removal of the university’s name from the list of pledges. I have met with the Office for Students—which comes to the point the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made—to discuss its role in regulating the behaviour of universities and investigating how the sector is to meet the standards set.

I am pleased that the Office for Students recognises that there is more it can do and intends to do on bad behaviour by universities. However, I am concerned that this work is far too slow. I ask the Minister to do whatever she can to expedite this process and get some real regulatory bite behind that statement of expectation. I welcome the steps taken by the Government and the Department for Education. I am pleased that the Minister has backed the university pledge, created by the campaign group Can’t Buy My Silence. I welcome her response to my letter earlier this year, especially her offer of a meeting. We are still waiting on that meeting. I wonder if today she could reiterate that offer, so that we might discuss in private some of the details I was unable to give in the debate today. I am sorry to say that I think she will be shocked by them.

Survivors need more than commitments, pledges and statements. They need concrete action. If this is happening in Oxford colleges, it is happening in other universities and other institutions. The Can’t Buy My Silence campaign began with Zelda Perkins being placed under an NDA by her then employer Harvey Weinstein. She was paid £120,000 to keep quiet about Weinstein’s abuse and mistreatment of her and her team.

NDAs occur in many different walks of life—in settlement agreements of severance packages as well as in cases of wrongdoing. Where both parties agree to sign to an NDA, we do not take issue. It is not a problem when it is signed freely. Whether it be a university student or an employee reporting their boss’s bad behaviour, the practice of individuals feeling in any way pressured or forced to sign up to these clauses needs to stop.

If we decide to regulate the use of non-disclosure agreements, we will not be the first. Prince Edward Island in Canada is one step ahead, having already passed a Bill to regulate such agreements. It is called the Non-disclosure Agreements Act, and it was passed in May 2022. It states that

“A party responsible or person who committed or who is alleged to have committed harassment or discrimination may only enter into a non-disclosure agreement with a relevant person…if such an agreement is the expressed wish and preference of the relevant person concerned”—

the expressed wish of the survivor, the victim, the person who is reporting. It is so simple: no one in any circumstance, in any university or otherwise, should enter into a non-disclosure agreement or gagging clause against their will. As such, I will table a private Member’s Bill today to establish exactly that principle. I hope that colleagues and Ministers who I know are on board with the campaign will consider supporting that Bill.

Moreover, the vehicle to attach my Bill to is on the horizon. The Ministry of Justice, in consultation with the Home Office, is bringing forward a victims Bill that will contain measures to, in the Ministry’s own words,

“amplify victims’ voices and make sure victims are at the heart of the criminal justice system”.

I had a positive meeting with the Home Secretary, at which she agreed to work with me on trying to include a ban on NDAs in that Bill. She further agreed that no one in any setting, of any age, should be able to silence the voice of a victim of crime. I have urged the Government to back my Bill, and to insert the language needed to tackle that egregious practice once and for all into the victims Bill.

Finally, though—this is a point made by some who do not want to sign the pledge—we have to acknowledge that tackling gagging clauses will only scratch the surface of the problems faced by women and girls. It is far and away the lowest-hanging fruit, but it is important. One survivor said to me:

“If they can’t do this, then I don’t have confidence they’ll do anything.”

Women and girls are keenly aware of the dangers that face us when we are walking home at night, venturing into a nightclub, or staying in our own homes. We are frequently subject to harassment, with 71% of women of all ages in the UK having experienced some form of sexual harassment in a public space. A smaller number, but still substantial, are subject to sexual offences, with the number recorded by the police reaching an all-time high in 2021—over 170,000.

At the top of that pyramid—or the bottom—are, I am afraid, those who have lost their lives. This weekend, I attended a vigil at my local church in Botley. We read out the names of the 140 women who were killed by men in 2021, of whom Sarah Everard was probably the most famous. Local artist Alice Brookes hand-stitched every name into a pillowcase. They were hung in a line wrapped around the church—it was incredibly moving. While those statistics are appalling, I do not think anyone is surprised by them any more. The scale of the crime is enormous, and what struck me about my conversations with survivors was that they had no faith in even reporting to the police. Sadly, the statistics confirm why: just 2.9% of reported sexual offences and 1.3% of recorded rapes result in a charge or summons.

While there is clearly much to do to end the epidemic of violence against women and girls, I hope that we can at least work together today to end the misuse of non-disclosure agreements and gagging clauses, not just in university settings but elsewhere in society. Young women up and down the country, not just those in Oxford, have been silenced by a system that is supposed to protect them, so I ask the Minister to not just encourage colleges and universities to sign the pledge, but work with colleagues across Government to stamp out that deeply harmful practice in its entirety. Through the victims Bill, we have a golden opportunity to enshrine in law the principle that no victim’s voice should be silenced, and although sexual violence takes so much from survivors, we can restore what should never have been taken away in the first place: their voice, their agency, and their power.

Uyghur Tribunal Judgment

Debate between Layla Moran and Jim Shannon

Thursday 20th January 2022 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) on securing the debate on an issue close to the heart of everyone in this Chamber. I thank Sir Geoffrey Nice and the World Uyghur Congress for their incredibly important work day in, day out for months.

As foreign affairs spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, I put it on the record that all Liberal Democrats everywhere stand shoulder to shoulder with the Uyghur people, who are being persecuted as we speak.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) secured the first debate on this subject in Westminster Hall in January 2019. Here we are, this many years later, and the Government have still done nothing. That is shameful, and it is painful for those victims, who watch debates such as this, which every time give them that bit of hope. They reward those of us who speak out with very humbling certificates of appreciation. I was looking at mine, which I have proudly on my desk. It was given to me by the World Uyghur Congress and on it is a quote from Nobel laureate and holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel:

“what hurts the victim most is not the cruelty of the oppressor but the silence of the bystander.”

In this Government, I am afraid, a bystander is all they have.

When hon. Members have spoken out against the appalling treatment of the Uyghurs and voted to declare a genocide last year, we were challenged by sceptics. I have no doubt that we will all go back to our offices and open our inboxes to find another debunking email, likely from the Chinese themselves, saying how everything we are saying is untrue. I am afraid to say that with the tribunal comes irrefutable proof that has been carefully put together. The tribunal provides the clearest evidence, beyond any reasonable doubt, and what harrowing evidence it is of abhorrent violence, children taken from their families, systematic sexual violence against women and girls, forced sterilisation and abortion, forced cultural assimilation and desecration. One witness said:

“I have no words to describe the inhuman cruelty of the violence.”

After recounting the torture she endured, she said:

“I can’t cry and I can’t die, I must see them pay for this. I am already a walking corpse, my soul and heart are dead.”

What is even more concerning is that British consumers, right now, are unknowingly complicit in this violence. It has been noted in previous speeches today and in reports led by the hon. Member for Wealden and the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee that we need to clean up our supply chains in this country. I am appalled that the Government still have not implemented the recommendation not just of the BEIS Committee but of the Foreign Affairs Committee to ban the import of cotton products known to have been produced in Xinjiang. This helps businesses, by the way. After much consumer pressure, Nike, Adidas and H&M declared that they were on the same side of the Uyghur people and that they would clean up their supply chains. The result was that the Chinese Government pressed people in China to stop buying those brands, whose reward for taking a brave stance was to lose profits in China. It should not have to be that way. We can legislate in this place so that companies do not have to make those choices.

Incidentally, it is not just about cotton; it is also about the supply of data, which is an issue I have previously raised in this House. One such company is ByteDance, the parent company of TikTok—I dare people to floss at their earliest convenience, and I mean the dance rather than looking after their teeth. It is deeply concerning that our children, who are the main consumers of TikTok, are inadvertently helping a company owned by ByteDance. It is concerning because ByteDance signed a co-operation agreement with the Chinese Communist party’s Ministry of Public Security. According to Human Rights Watch, ByteDance plays

“a significant role in facilitating and entrenching the Chinese government’s censorship, surveillance, and propaganda regime inside China.”

Another company, Huawei, has been implicated in using surveillance technology in the detention camps, so we need to fix the supply chains not just of goods, but of data.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

On that very valid point—I congratulate the hon. Lady on what she is saying—over the past few weeks, Intel and Tesla have hit the headlines because of trading with Xinjiang. The US introduced a Bill at the end of December banning companies from using goods from Xinjiang province in their supply chains. Does she agree—I think everyone in the House today does—that we should do that in this House and encourage all our European neighbours to do the same thing?

[Layla Moran]

I thank the hon. Member very much for his intervention. I agree absolutely—that is literally what I was about to say—and the fact that he said it reinforces the point that there is appetite in this House to legislate for this, and we should do so at the earliest possible opportunity. The US has already done that and, moreover, it has done the very basic thing of saying that a genocide is occurring. The US Government have said, cross-party, that that is happening, yet our Government still have not—notwithstanding the fact that it is our legal, not just our moral, obligation to do that now.

Let us reflect on why the Government are perhaps being so reticent. The fact is that, since 2011, our trade with China has doubled, going from £46 billion to £93 billion. It is also worth noting that trade grew at its fastest rate when the now Foreign Secretary was Trade Secretary. In her role as Trade Secretary, she refused to take amendments to the Trade Bill—now the Trade Act 2021—on human rights and genocide.

I have been delighted to read that, since then, there has been a bit of a damascene conversion and I understand that the Foreign Secretary has agreed privately that a genocide is occurring. If that is what they think privately, think what it would mean if they came out and said it publicly and worked with Cabinet colleagues, so that across all Departments, we can remove this blight from our statute book. It should not be left to individual consumers and individual companies to make those choices. We know that a genocide is occurring. We know that acting is the right thing to do. I urge the Minister to do what other Ministers before her have perhaps been scared to do: speak the truth, declare that a genocide is happening to the Uyghur people, and do not be that silent bystander.

Covid-19

Debate between Layla Moran and Jim Shannon

Monday 14th December 2020 Commons Chamber

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

I would like to start by remembering all those in my constituency, in Oxfordshire and across the country who have tragically lost their lives. The number of people dying at present is thankfully fewer than it was before—it is in the handfuls—but for every single one, there is a family who has lost someone just before Christmas. It is right to start by remembering them.

I am sure I speak for many when I say that I cannot wait to see the back of 2020. It has been the most ridiculous year in so many ways, but it has also given us glimpses of hope and positivity. In Oxford West and Abingdon, there are so many people to thank, because they deserve it and they are working so incredibly hard, but I will just name a few. I think of the Abingdon Bridge, a group that works with deprived young people who often have nowhere else to turn. Other Members have spoken about mental health, which affects all parts of society, but I am particularly worried about our young people right now—their loss of chances for the future and their feeling of despair, with many feeling that they have nowhere to turn. It is an incredibly difficult time.

It is a difficult time, too, for families. Furlough has, of course, been welcome, but far too many businesses are on their last legs. They tell me that if Oxfordshire goes up from tier 2 to tier 3 or, even worse, if there is a spike and we go into a national lockdown in January, they will have to close. The very last of their resilience is nearing its end, and those families are finding themselves relying on food banks such as the Cutteslowe Larder, the Botley Fridge and the Oxford Food Bank more than they ever have before. We must thank those volunteers, but we must also make the case for a sustainable way through this crisis. That is what those businesses crave—the stability. They tell me that they would prefer to stay in tier 2 longer than to open up too quickly and risk a spike, which is what we are seeing in some parts of the country now, sadly.

I am proud that many of the scientists who work as part of the Oxford Vaccine Group with Sarah Gilbert and her cohort live in my constituency. They are nothing short of heroes. When the vaccine is approved, as I am sure it will be, they will save lives, and not just in this country. Because this vaccine does not need to be stored in extraordinarily sub-zero temperatures, it will save millions, if not billions, of lives across the globe. Those scientists all deserve extraordinary thanks.

There are others who deserve our thanks. Oxford United have given facemasks not just to their fans, but to the wider community. I have never been more grateful to our local papers, including the Oxford Mail, and to our local BBC networks for covering these extraordinary moments of heroism locally. It has made me and, I am sure, others really appreciate the value of our local broadcasters.

I would be remiss not to mention organisations such as the Children’s Air Ambulance, which has helped some of those most vulnerable families during this time. Of course, I also thank our local NHS teams, GPs, those who work in our care homes and our teachers, who have stuck on the frontline through thick and thin, and are desperate to be included in the first roll-out of the vaccine. That is my ask of the Minister: please encourage the Government to include teachers in that first wave of the roll-out; they desperately need it because they have been there throughout, looking after the children so that others could go to work.

Let me turn to the sustainable way out. It is not fair to say anything other than that the vaccine is the light at the end of the tunnel. It is what we all want to get to, it is how we are going to eliminate this virus. It is the way out, but as miraculous as the vaccine is, we are a long way away from that point. When the Government started hyping up the vaccine, I was disheartened to see in my own area—other Members may have seen this too—that people were thinking, “Oh, it’s around the corner. People are going to get it in December and January, not appreciating that the scale of the task means that in reality we are not going to get there until Easter at the very earliest, and probably much later than that.

Let me tell the House a story from the Oxfordshire trusts today. GP surgeries in north Oxford were lined up to vaccinate the over-80s. They had called people and said, “Come—here’s your appointment.” But at the 11th hour, NHS England contacted them to say, “You haven’t quite got the right information in the right place. Computer says no. Stand everyone down.” The disappointment among my constituents was palpable. There was frustration in the clinical commissioning group and the GP surgeries, which had worked through the weekend and overnight to ensure that the vaccine was available. I say this not to apportion any blame, but to point out that these kinds of mistake will happen. There will be hiccups on this road. We cannot assume that this will be over quickly.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that over Christmas there is an onus on us all, in and outside the House, to follow the rules of hands, face and space, not to invite extra numbers to our Christmas dinner, and to wear a mask and keep our distance when we go shopping? If we do all those things, then with the vaccine we can beat the virus.

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Debate between Layla Moran and Jim Shannon

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting: House of Commons & Committee: 2nd sitting
Wednesday 8th January 2020 Commons Chamber

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

I rise to support new clauses 10 and 29, on which we will be seeking a vote today. These should absolutely be no-brainers.

New clause 10 is about the Erasmus programme. For students, young people, those in training and staff who work in the education sector, the Erasmus scheme has been absolutely incredible. I wonder how many of us on these Benches have used that programme ourselves, or have had our children or others in our family do so. From 2014 to the end of this year alone, €1 billion has been allocated to support the UK as part of Erasmus+. New clause 10 would only require the Government to seek—to do what they say they want to do, but let us be sure—to negotiate continuing full membership of the future Erasmus education and youth programme.

We could secure access to the programme through negotiations, but we would be an associated third country and that would never be as good as the programme we are part of now. However, at least with new clause 10 this Parliament would be instructing the Government that, as part of the next phase, that is something we absolutely want.

Let us remind ourselves what Erasmus does. It allows our young people to go abroad to European universities, to learn new languages, to meet new people, to put down some roots abroad and to build the international understanding that, in my view, is a big part of what it means to be British.

[Jim Shannon]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing this matter to the Committee for consideration. Today I had the opportunity to meet representatives from the Russell Group, which encompasses 24 universities across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the Erasmus scheme was one of the schemes they mentioned. They intimated how good the scheme was and how important it was, and stressed the opportunity that it brings. I want to support the hon. Lady in what she has said. When we have universities with the capacity and strength of membership that we have across all four regions, it indicates to me that the Erasmus scheme is a good scheme and needs to be retained.

[Layla Moran]

I thank the hon. Member very much for his intervention; he makes the point beautifully. It is such a no-brainer: this is something that we should want to keep.

When people who have used the scheme return and apply their skills, the economy is boosted. The scheme increases their chances of getting a job and increases their confidence and sense of independence—and Brexit puts all that under threat. If full access to the scheme is not negotiated, it is those from the poorer families who will suffer. Those from well-off families will be able to study abroad if they want; their parents could pay the fees. The Erasmus scheme gives those from poorer backgrounds the ability to do that in a way that simply was not available before it came to fruition.

Net Zero Carbon Emissions: UK’s Progress

Debate between Layla Moran and Jim Shannon

Thursday 28th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Layla Moran]

I am sorry, but I need to make progress.

We must take inspiration from our own communities, where local political parties seem to be coming together. The Liberal Democrats on Vale of White Horse Council put forward a motion that was passed almost unanimously. Oxford Council unanimously passed a Green amendment declaring a climate emergency. The same is happening in towns and cities across the country.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Layla Moran]

I am going to continue for a bit longer.

The Liberal Democrats want to see a carbon neutral Britain by 2050. To do that, we would bring forward a zero carbon Act, including measures to fast-track the switch from fossil fuels to clean energy and green tech. We would introduce a green transport Act, bringing forward the planned ban on new diesel and petrol cars by 2025 and 2030 respectively, and helping to fast-track the uptake of electric vehicle charging infrastructure. Then there is the zero carbon homes standard, which was recklessly scrapped by the Conservatives. I welcome the Plastic Pollution Bill, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), which would set targets for the reduction of plastic pollution.

All in all, we need a new type of economy—one that is sustainable and which embeds the issues of the day at its heart. We must consider implementing radical financial changes, such as moving to a circular economy, as advocated by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, using a carbon tax and dividend to use market forces to reduce emissions quickly. We should implement rewards for companies that demonstrate green investment and for pension funds that take pains to divest. We should reward companies that take this issue to their hearts, but I do not yet see the radical change that is needed.

Vagrancy Act

Debate between Layla Moran and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 29th January 2019 Commons Chamber

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

I am grateful to the House for allowing me to raise the issue of the Vagrancy Act 1824 on this of all evenings, when others out there might be forgiven for thinking that we do nothing other than talk about Brexit.

I have been campaigning to repeal the Vagrancy Act for well over a year now. In fact, my campaign began in response to a petition by the Oxford University Student Union and Oxford-based homelessness campaign group On Your Doorstep. I want to give them full credit for starting this.

The Vagrancy Act is a cruel and outdated piece of legislation. It was aimed at tackling the rise in homeless veterans after the Napoleonic wars, and even then it was controversial, with the great abolitionist William Wilberforce suggesting that it was too catch-all because it did not consider people’s individual circumstances. Nearly 200 years later, it is still used to criminalise people for sleeping rough or begging.

Between 2014 and 2016, more than 3,000 homeless people were dragged before the courts in violation of the Vagrancy Act. That is only the tip of the iceberg, as many more individuals will have been arrested but had their cases dropped, or the Act will have been used as a threat to move them on.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate. This issue affects us all. Just last week in my constituency, I had to deal with a homeless person in great need. Does she agree that the use of this law to target people who are sleeping on the streets or begging should be stopped, and instead councils should work with compassion and care to help people who are desperate and find a way to make our social care system work for that individual, as opposed to simply moving them on, as helpless and hopeless as they were before? Compassion and care—that is what we need in society.

[Layla Moran]

The words “compassion and care” will repeat themselves in what I have to say tonight, and I could not more agree with the hon. Gentleman. The signal that this sends to others about who we are as a society is why I believe this Act needs to be repealed as a matter of urgency.

Cycling: Gilligan Report

Debate between Layla Moran and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 4th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate, as it is important that cycling reaches its potential in her constituency. We have done something similar in Strangford with the Comber greenway, which encourages cycling between Comber and Dundonald, and by doing so we have enabled people to see the area’s greenness and be environmentally friendly and to experience the health benefits of cycling.

I commend the hon. Lady for what she is doing. Many constituencies across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have done similar things. We have done it in Strangford, and so far it has been successful and we are looking towards other schemes.

[Layla Moran]

There are many good examples across the country, but we need many more.

Unsurprisingly perhaps, cycling is one of the top issues in my postbag, and top of the list of cycling issues is the need for segregated cycle lanes. Why? Because they are safer. Fiona lives off the Botley Road, and she gives examples of regular accidents on that road. She says that

“the road needs to be fit to drive and cycle and to do so with full concentration.”