Oral Answers to Questions

Layla Moran Excerpts

Wednesday 31st October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Karen Bradley]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The Independent Reporting Commission’s first report is clear that the decisions that would benefit everybody in Northern Ireland must be made by Ministers. We have passed a Bill that will enable civil servants to make decisions to allow the continued running of public services, but they are clearly no substitute for elected politicians and Ministers in Stormont.

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

7. If she will make it her policy to publish information on loans and donations given to Northern Ireland political parties since 2014.

[The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Shailesh Vara)]

The publication by the Electoral Commission of donations and loans data for the Northern Ireland parties from 1 July 2017 is a positive step that should be welcomed by the whole House. The decision to publish data from July 2017 was taken on the basis of consultation and broad support from the majority of political parties in Northern Ireland.

[Layla Moran]

How can it be right that the very party that would come under investigation if donations dating back to 2014 were published essentially gets a veto? We know that the leave campaign is now under investigation for donations during the referendum. Surely Northern Ireland deserves that kind of transparency, too. Why are this Government ignoring the recommendations of the Electoral Commission?

[Mr Vara]

I am sorry that the hon. Lady seeks to make political capital out of this. The then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), wrote to all the political parties in January 2017 regarding transparency and a date. With the exception of one party, they all agreed on the way forward. As for any other issues, I am sorry that the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) cannot accept the broad view of the majority of parties in Northern Ireland.

Overseas Electors Bill (Second sitting)

Layla Moran Excerpts

Wednesday 24th October 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Christian Matheson]

In that case, bearing in mind the time, I will plough on and try to get through it as quickly as possible.

Part of new clause 6 has already been covered. New clause 6 makes it clear that it is essential that a report is provided that details

“how many British citizens currently resident overseas are eligible to register as overseas electors, and how many are likely to be eligible”

if the 15-year time limit is removed following the successful passage of the Bill.

Subsection (2)(b) considers the impact of extending the franchise on the

“likely demand for online registration services and how this demand should be met”.

The Minister has touched on online registration briefly before. It currently acts as a central tool for registering overseas voters and takes part of the burden away from EROs. Overseas electors can now register online and no longer require another British passport holder to countersign the registration form, which reduces administrative work at a local level.

Paragraph 10 of the Government’s policy statement says:

“Applicants will continue to be able to make applications using the register to vote service on GOV.UK, as well as by using paper forms or (in some cases) by telephone.”

However, the Association of Electoral Administrators has outlined several practical issues with sustaining the online system after the 15-year rule is removed. The online platform struggles to stay up to date with new addresses as a result of frequent new housing developments. That problem will be exacerbated with the proposed removal of the 15-year restriction on overseas electors, as previous addresses from many years ago may no longer exist. If the proposed removal of the 15-year application restriction for overseas electors is enacted, the gov.uk online registration service will need to be adapted and improved to allow overseas applications to be made online even though the previous property may have been demolished and/or redeveloped.

I will try to canter through the rest, because I am concerned about the time. Subsection 2(c) considers

“the effects of removing the 15-year time limits on the workloads of local authorities, including demands on electoral registration officers, and how any consequent resourcing…should be met”.

I touched on that in the Committee’s meeting last week, especially the wellbeing of electoral registration staff and the integrity of our local system when staff are overburdened and either cannot process applications quickly enough or give scant regard to the credibility or integrity of an application because there are simply so many to deal with.

Electoral registration officers are valuable, skilled members of our civil service at a local level and provide the vital administrative work behind our elections. Increasing the number of British citizens overseas who are eligible to register to vote will add strain to the already stretched resources of electoral administrators. The Minister has previously indicated that additional resources will be given to meet those extra strains, and I hope that that pledge will continue. Before continuing with the Bill, the Government must consider in detail the effects of removing the 15-year time limit on the workloads of local authorities.

Subsection (2)(d) asks that proper consideration be given to the possibility of increased opportunities for electoral fraud as a result of the Bill. The Government have claimed a strict stance on electoral fraud in the UK, as we discussed earlier, by saying that they are committed to boosting confidence in our democratic process and to safeguarding elections against fraud. That is clearly evidenced by their plans to extend the requirement to show ID when voting. Some Opposition Members worry that that is more about voter suppression, but we have already had that discussion. It is a little absurd that the Government are trying to make it harder for people living in this country to vote by requiring them to show ID, while they are creating a system of overseas voters that is potentially wide open to abuse.

We previously discussed attestation rules. A sworn statement is not sufficient security to prevent fraudulent applications when legal proceedings are very unlikely to be taken forward, given that both applicant and attester are living abroad—that is something I discussed earlier with my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North. Considering the strict rules enforced by the Government in UK voter ID programmes, we question how they can take such a hard-line stance on domestic voters but allow more lax rules for overseas voters. That goes back to the point that the Minister made earlier about treating voters equally.

Moving on to paragraph (e), relating to the previous discussion, it is also important that we consider

“whether current election timetables are of sufficient duration to enable the full participation of any increased numbers of overseas electors”.

We have discussed polling day minus 12 being the present registration deadline. We therefore need a proper investigation to see how that works. Forgive me if I am going a little too quickly, but I am keen that we make progress with our consideration.

Paragraph (f) relates to

“how the electorates of existing UK constituencies will be affected”.

That is perhaps the most important part of the new clause. With an estimated 5 million new voters being enfranchised, detailed provision must be put in place regarding how those voters will affect current UK constituencies. As the Minister knows well, the Opposition want a fair boundary system that benefits our democracy, not just the electoral interests of the Conservative party. Cutting the number of MPs by 50 while planning to enfranchise 5 million new voters is beyond illogical. Clearly the political context has changed significantly since the flawed proposals were first floated under the prime ministership of David Cameron, but the spread of new voters across the constituencies, and how they will be allocated, is crucial. There must be detailed consideration to prepare for that.

I would like the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon to be able to speak as well. With your permission, Mr Robertson, I will sit down and return to new clause 11 shortly.

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

Thank you, Mr Robertson, for allowing me to speak specifically on new clause 1. Many of the issues that I am trying to raise with it have been well described, not just today but in our session last week.

The new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a report about the number of electors. We very much hope that many millions, if possible, of electors register. My concern is that we do not know where they will register, although we can guess. Many young people in particular may have last been in London before they got a job that allowed them to go abroad, so there is a chance that some constituencies could be artificially inflated in numbers and then have to be artificially made smaller geographically by the Boundary Commission to sort that out.

My worry about the Boundary Commission is that, as we all know, we should have had boundary changes already. It should have happened three years ago and it has not. The reason for having a report is not to pre-empt what it might say; we have to ensure that the issue of where overseas electors go is looked at promptly after the first possible point at which they are likely to register, which, let us face it, will be at the next general election.

[Bob Stewart]

I have a constituent living overseas who would be completely confused, because in the last nine years she would have had three constituencies. Assuming the boundary review goes through, she will not know where the hell she started from.

[Layla Moran]

I very much welcome that intervention because that is one of the many reasons the Electoral Commission proposes a solution—a solution that is in the Liberal Democrat manifesto.

The number of people who have registered to vote has inflated since the referendum, as it should. What is happening with the UK and Brexit has galvanised people’s interest in having a say in what it means to be British, and the effect it is going to have on them abroad. In particular, those Britons who live in the EU, such as my parents, now have very specific issues. If Brexit happens, they will continue to have those issues. I hope that the negotiated settlement will sort out all of the issues with British citizens living in the EU and European citizens living here, but let us imagine that there will be things to iron out.

So the proposal is that the Government go away and, at this point, now that the political wind has changed, look at the possibility of overseas constituencies. New clause 1 does not suggest that we say now that that should happen; it simply asks the Government to make sure they come back to this House after the likely date of the next general election, having considered how many overseas electors are registered, where they are and what kinds of issues they have, so that as early as possible, this House has a proper chance to sort out what are likely to be a number of major kinks resulting from this very welcome Bill.

I will finish by raising my other concern, which is about the effect of large numbers of constituents coming into small numbers of constituencies, which then go through a Boundary Commission process that artificially shrinks the geographical size of those constituencies. Let us imagine that 70,000 people enter Oxford West and Abingdon. That is fine—I very much welcome them—but it means that my constituency, geographically, decreases by a third or two thirds. [Interruption.] Or whatever it may be. However, the current boundaries also take into account local authority boundaries and ward boundaries. There is a geographical link that matters to the people who live in the constituency. They have different needs from overseas electors. It is not just about having MPs who can specifically address the issues of those overseas electors, but making sure that MPs who are here can properly serve—in the geographical sense—the constituents who live on this land, in our communities.

[Christian Matheson]

One of my concerns about the Bill as it stands is that there is a lack of clarity as to which constituency an overseas voter might seek to join, and might be added to. That might artificially inflate the number of overseas voters in a particular constituency. Does the hon. Lady share my concerns?

[Layla Moran]

I absolutely share the hon. Gentleman’s concerns. I also share concerns about increased workloads in certain parts of the country, should it be the case that overseas voters are not evenly distributed. We can probably assume—it is more likely than not—that they will not be evenly distributed.

To reiterate, all that new clause 1 does is ask the Government to ensure that, at the first available opportunity after the next general election, they come back and commit to considering all those points. It is not enough just to allow the Boundary Commission to do that, because these two things must be considered together. The Boundary Commission cannot say whether it wants overseas constituencies; that is a matter for this House to consider, and it should be a matter for the Government to consider, in conjunction with the change to the number of constituencies.

[Glyn Davies]

I must say that I do not appreciate it when Opposition Members say things that I agree with, as that makes my position a little bit difficult, but I want to emphasise that—as has been a trend today—the points that are being made by Members on the Opposition Benches are all reasonable. Our aim in resisting them is that we want to maintain the credibility of the Bill—it is a Bill that will achieve wide support—and make sure that it goes through.

As with amendment 28, which was tabled by the hon. Member for City of Chester, these provisions would postpone the enfranchisement of many overseas citizens who rightly want to vote in our elections. I stress that the Bill is a single-issue Bill, and I think the amendments are a distraction from that. I hope that hon. Members will not press their proposals.

October EU Council

Layla Moran Excerpts

Monday 22nd October 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I absolutely understand. Some people have said to me that we should not have triggered article 50 when we did. I think it was important that we triggered it when we did. We took time to prepare, but then triggered it precisely in order to get this process into place. My right hon. Friend will know the process within article 50 is for two years. That is why we will leave the EU on 29 March 2019. What we are working to ensure is that we get the future relationship in place at the end of that implementation period, an implementation period that I believe was right and necessary to negotiate to ensure that for both citizens and businesses there were not two cliff-edges in the changed relationship with the EU, but we have a smooth and orderly withdrawal and movement into the future partnership.

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

Can the Prime Minister explain why, if she really has the interests of the people of Northern Ireland in her heart, she recently did not allow the joint leaders who backed remain in Northern Ireland to meet with her? Between them, they represent the majority of voters in Northern Ireland. Is it because she does not want to hear what they have to say because, inconveniently, it does not agree with what she wants?

[The Prime Minister]

Both I and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland meet the leaders of all the parties in Northern Ireland and discuss with them a number of issues, including Brexit.

Overseas Electors Bill (First sitting)

Layla Moran Excerpts

Wednesday 17th October 2018 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Before we begin line-by-line consideration, I remind Members that the required notice period for tabling amendments in Public Bill Committee is three working days. Amendments should therefore be tabled by the rise of the House on Friday for consideration on the following Wednesday.

For those who are relatively new to the process, it may be useful if I give a brief explanation of the arrangements. The selection list for today’s sitting, which is available in the Committee Room and on the Bill website, shows how selected amendments have been grouped for debate, generally on the same or similar issues. The Member who has put their name to the leading amendment in each group will be called first; other Members who wish to speak on any amendment in the group will then be free to catch my eye. A Member may speak more than once in a single debate.

At the end of a debate on a group of amendments, new clauses or schedules, I shall again call the Member who moved the leading amendment or new clause. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw it or seek a decision on it. If any Member wishes to press to a vote any other amendment, new clause or schedule in the group, they need to let me know.

Decisions on amendments take place not in the order in which they are debated, but in the order in which they appear on the amendment paper. In other words, debates occur according to the selection and grouping list, but decisions are taken when we come to the clause that the amendment would affect. New clauses and schedules are decided on after we finish consideration of the existing text of the Bill. I shall use my discretion to decide whether to allow separate stand part debates on individual clauses and schedules after debate on the relevant amendments.

Clause 1

Extension of franchise for parliamentary elections: British citizens overseas

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

I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 14, after “citizen,” insert

“(iia) is aged 16 or over,”.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I put on record my congratulations, and those of the Liberal Democrats more generally, to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire for presenting the Bill and steering it to Committee. The subject has been in our manifesto for a very long time, as I know it has been for most parties. I look forward to continuing to support the Bill.

Since this is my first Public Bill Committee—my party is quite small, so we do not feature on such Committees very often—I thought I had better make the most of it, so I decided to table some amendments. However, I reassure the hon. Gentleman that I have no intention of derailing anything, so I hope he will see my amendments in a spirit of improvement and nothing more.

Amendment 1 relates to a proposal that it is time to consider seriously: extending the franchise for overseas electors to 16 and 17-year-olds. That, of course, is in line with the policy of my party and many others. It is worth mentioning that, in the last general election, the majority of votes were cast for parties that support it. I am grateful to the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson, the hon. Member for City of Chester, for adding his name to the amendment. I note that several other hon. Members present have also expressed support for extending the franchise for various reasons, and I hope I can count on their support today.

In the debate on the money resolution, the Minister said:

“Now is the time that we should reach out to our citizens—our people around the world—and say, ‘You are British, and we are proud that you are British and we welcome you into our democracy.’”—[Official Report, 16 October 2018; Vol. 647, c. 572.]

I sincerely hope she agrees that that should extend to 16 and 17-year-olds. Rightly, they play a crucial part in the Welsh Assembly, which last week voted overwhelming to include them in Welsh Assembly elections. As we know well, in Scotland, 16 and 17-year-olds played a critical role in the referendum. The idea that 16 and 17-year-olds are not ready to vote has been roundly proven to be wrong. As education spokesperson, I go around schools a lot. Young people are desperate for a chance to grab hold of democracy.

I was one of those 16 and 17-year-olds who would not have been in this country at that age. My father was a diplomat and we travelled around the world. At that point, I was strong in my Britishness and I felt so tied to the country. Just because I was not here on terra firma does not mean that my heart was not here. That is the spirit that the whole of the Bill expresses: just because someone is abroad does not mean that they are not British—quite the opposite.

I fully recognise and anticipate that the Minister will argue that the amendment would lead to an anomaly, as only those 16 and 17-year-olds who are overseas would vote in elections but not everyone else. I would accept that anomaly. It would show that 16 and 17-year-olds would and can participate in those kinds of elections and it may open the door to that wider debate. That is why it is important to talk about it today.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

I am sorry to fire a torpedo at the hon. Lady. Perhaps I am being thick, but the Bill deals with people who have been out of the United Kingdom for 15 years or more. How will that apply to a 16-year-old?

--- Later in debate ---

[Layla Moran]

Let me give myself as an example. I was born in this country—in Hammersmith—and we left when I was one. I would have been tied to an address, but we left and I did not come back until university. I came back for boarding school because I had to, but my brothers and sisters did not because I went to boarding school only because we were in a country that did not have adequate schooling—in fact, we started our own school, but that is a long story.

The amendment would have applied to me, because when I was 16, had there been a general election, I could have had the chance to vote: I lived here when I was one and I was on my parents’ passports at that point. I took my first flight to Nepal when I was six months old.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to say a few words under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. The hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon made clear that there are anomalies in our current electoral system. She referred to developments in Wales, but several hundred thousand young people have already voted in an election, including 16 and 17-year-olds: the Scottish referendum, which was on a different franchise to the referendum we had on the European Union.

The numbers of people who would be affected by moving from a 15-year threshold for 16 and 17-year-olds to an indefinite threshold would be very low. By definition, it may be only hundreds or even fewer, but there is an important principle at stake about the future of the country. I do not want to reopen the debate about the EU referendum—I am sure you would call me to order if I did, Mr Robertson—but by definition young people have a longer interest in the future of our country than older people, because we are all mortal. Therefore, I support the amendment. It is also supported by many organisations that campaign to widen our democracy. On that basis, I am happy to give my support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chloe Smith]

No, I will not. I will be brief. The hon. Gentleman has had ample time to put his arguments. The Bill is not a moment for a “democratic experiment”, to quote the hon. Gentleman further. It is also not the moment to fracture the franchise; it is a moment to extend the franchise. It is not right to make the franchise one thing in one sense and another thing in another sense.

I address that argument directly to the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon, who has rightly brought the argument here today in a spirit of wanting to explore the issues, and I applaud her for that. She said at the outset that she wanted this to be an exploratory debate, and I am grateful that we have had that today. The bottom line is that the Bill seeks to do something different. It is about extending the franchise geographically; it is not about the age at which the franchise starts, and I do not think that it would be a wise course to have two different age starting points for the franchise within the democracy that we hope to sustain for UK parliamentary elections. I hope that the hon. Lady will feel able to withdraw the amendment on that basis. I look forward to making progress through the Bill.

[Layla Moran]

I thank everyone who has contributed to this debate. I do not agree that this is not the time to discuss this matter, or that we should not vote on it. It may well have been voted down in the past, but let us face it: the shifting sands of politics are moving so fast that I do not even know what happened yesterday, let alone what will happen tomorrow. What I do know, though, on behalf of many of the young people I speak to day in, day out, as I have done for the whole of my career, is that this is absolutely the time to press such an amendment to a vote, and that is what I intend to do.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Norris]

Anyone who has ever been interested in genealogy knows there are a broad range of ways to try to establish where people were at certain points in time. The issue is that with every level of extra difficulty, the whole system gets much harder. Under the current rule, the association says it takes two hours to legitimately verify one voter. Every layer added on top of that will only make that longer. There comes a point at which we are asking too much.

Instead, the amendment would stand the 15-year rule as it does today, so that those people would register as they normally do. That would take two hours each time, but we are managing to do that now, so presumably we can be confident that with the right resources we can continue to do so. Then, every year, that starting register of anyone who joins would carry on. Those grandfather rights, as the lawyers call them, would grow across the years and we would get to what the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire seeks, but in a way that would be practically deliverable by our electoral administrators, who are pressed.

[Layla Moran]

How many people does the hon. Gentleman think that would exclude? We are talking about large numbers of people who have been here for far more than 15 years. Does not the amendment stop their right to vote completely?

[Alex Norris]

I cannot find the numbers; perhaps the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire may help when he responds. I will be clear because I make no attempt at subterfuge: the amendment would mean that the Bill would not enhance the position of people not currently eligible to vote. Trying to get to that position is very difficult to the point of being an incredible undue burden.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christian Matheson]

I do not intend to speak at length on these three amendments. Amendments 34 and 35, which my hon. Friend was just talking about, talk about the practical difficulties in the administration of overseas electors. My office sought advice from one of the electoral registration officers in my region who is known to me. They talked about the difficulties of finding information to verify the individual.

Council tax records will go back only five or six years, and they do not always keep historic electoral registers, so if somebody had moved away 20 or more years ago, the manager in the electoral registration office would not know how to start going about finding their information. The view of the electoral registration officer who my office spoke to was that they would simply have to start taking people at face value when they applied to be an international voter, because there would be no real way to tell if somebody was eligible or not, and they do not have the resources or the time to do that research.

The current process for an overseas registered voter is complex. It takes ages to verify somebody because the office has to contact the local archivist. Many offices are now paperless. There used to be 15 years’ worth of voting registration documents in this office in my region, but now they do not have any storage space for the voting records, so they have to call an archivist to get the information they need about whether the person was on the register, which can take many days.

They have also found issues with boundary changes, which cause difficulties in figuring out someone’s ward and polling district. That is important because the registers are based on polling districts, but they might disappear as the wards are rearranged, which makes it harder to track down where the individual polling district is.

[Layla Moran]

I draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to my amendment about overseas constituencies. Many of those issues are solved by that amendment. Would he be willing to support that as well?

[Christian Matheson]

I confess that my focus has been on the earlier parts of the Bill and I have not had a chance to check that yet. Perhaps the hon. Lady and I can discuss that in due course.

If an individual had lived abroad for 10 years, there could have been two boundary reviews since they had moved, so their previous residence could have been transferred to a new polling district. Even if they had only lived in one house, it could now be in a new polling district. My contact, the electoral registration officer who my office spoke to, felt that that is all manageable when someone has been abroad for only about five years, but if it is longer than that, there will have been more boundary reviews, so it becomes increasingly difficult.

If I may make a more political point that is nevertheless entirely relevant, cuts to local authorities mean that electoral registration officers have been under huge pressure in the last few years. My local council, Cheshire West and Chester Council, has had £57 million of cuts in four years. It is focusing entirely on putting what money it has left in the most critical areas, such as children’s services and looking after vulnerable adults, but plenty of local authorities simply do not have the resources to manage that in the austere times still with us, whether austerity has ended or not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chloe Smith]

This is a very interesting amendment. My understanding of what the hon. Member for Nottingham North is trying to do developed slightly as he made his comments, and I am grateful for the way in which he explained what his amendments seek to do. I will take them in two halves and respond to some points in relation to amendment 33 before coming on to the other two amendments.

On amendment 33, I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman recognises the challenge of the residency test. At the moment, there is no way for a person to join the register if they had been resident in the UK, as opposed to previously registered. Those are the two different concepts that we are dealing with, and I think the hon. Gentleman recognises that in what he is trying to do with amendment 33. I welcome that, because the residency issue aims to put right an injustice that, for example, could apply to the children of British citizens who moved abroad. I believe that the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon might have been such an example. Having left the UK at such a young age, she could not possibly have been registered in this country, but of course, she had been resident here.

[Layla Moran]

I was resident here, but my brothers and sisters were not. They were born after me, and were born abroad. Are they less British than I?

[Chloe Smith]

There we go. It is very helpful to have such personal experience of the issues raised in the Bill. However, I feel duty bound to say that the Bill might not help in the instance of the hon. Lady’s brothers and sisters, although it would help in her own instance.

Leaving the EU: Negotiations

Layla Moran Excerpts

Tuesday 10th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sir Vince Cable]

Yes. There is a whole series of well-known instances relating to beef hormones, genetically modified foods and chlorinated chickens. I do not know how well based the arguments are scientifically, but clearly that will demand a repudiation of those European standards. The Government’s stance—again, this is a positive—makes it clear that concessions cannot now be given on those items and that it will be impossible to reach a trade agreement with the Trump Administration in practice, if not in theory.



The negatives are even clearer than the positives. One of them is the sheer workability of the arrangements. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden has said quite categorically that the arrangements he has been involved in designing for months are simply unworkable, and it is very clear why that is the case. If we have a differential tariff system, it is very cumbersome to enforce. There is an obvious temptation to smuggle. A company producing within the European Union but not in the UK will import through the UK at a lower tariff, and it would be necessary to have a sophisticated tracking system to identify where the product has gone. In complex supply chains with hundreds of widgets flying backwards and forwards, it is impossible to see how that could be done in practice. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden was well aware of that, and the European Commission is well aware of it, which is why it almost certainly will not pass to the next stage.

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

I sit on the Public Accounts Committee, and last February we went to Washington, where we had private briefings with State Department representatives about the trade deal. They were very clear that we must be absolutely clear about, for example, country of origin rules and that they do not want a part of a small trade deal—they will not “do skinny”, in their words. If that was their case last February, what does my right hon. Friend think they are making of the chaos of this Government now?

[Sir Vince Cable]

The European Union over many years has developed a sophisticated rules of origin system in order to develop an answer to precisely the problems presented by the complex nature of modern trade. They are quite right to say that in an environment of uncertainty, there is very little merit in pursuing an agreement.

The other major disadvantage of what the Government are proposing is, as several Members pointed out yesterday, the complete neglect of the services sector. It is not just 80% of the British economy, but includes extremely important industries—notably financial services, but also creative industries, the digital sector and entertainment, and of course much manufacturing happens through services exports. Rolls-Royce earns as much from its maintenance contracts as it does from selling its engines. When we send cars to the European Union, we sell them with a package attached to financial services. It is not at all clear how the Government propose to unscramble those very complicated relationships.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

Like each and every one of the Liberal Democrats, I did not get the referendum result that I wanted in 2016. I campaigned and voted for the United Kingdom to remain part of the European Union. In the early hours of 24 June, I looked on in a state of disbelief as the results came in, and it took weeks, if not months, for the implications of the vote properly to sink in. In Scotland, the uncertainty and disbelief were compounded by the new calls from the SNP and the nationalists for a second referendum to break up the United Kingdom.

Neither my personal view ahead of the referendum nor my personal reaction to the vote really matters. What matters is that the voters made their decision, and our job as parliamentarians is to ensure that we respect that decision and implement it in the best way possible. I find it impossible to ignore the blatant hypocrisy and incoherence of the Liberal Democrats’ position on this matter—hypocrisy, because they want to re-run a once-in-a-generation vote across the United Kingdom, but claim to oppose a rerun of another once-in-a-generation vote north of the border in Scotland. Their party leader, Willie Rennie MSP, says,

“With the Scottish economy teetering on the edge of a recession…the last thing our country needs is another divisive and distracting independence debate.”

I agree with Willie Rennie.

[Layla Moran]

Will the hon. Gentleman explain how the first referendum held after all the facts have been presented to us would count as a rerun, given that there would be new facts? In my constituency, for example, BMW has now come out and said that businesses would be harmed, and that would mean that my constituents would lose their jobs. Why should they not have the right to change their minds?

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Double]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the turnout was very high. I observed that the more “Project Fear” turned up the heat and told people that they were wrong to think of voting to leave, the more people were driven to vote leave. It was very much a reaction against being told by the establishment, “We know best. You should do what we tell you.”

My second point is that to have a second referendum now would undermine our negotiating position. The point has been made many times, but it needs to be made again: if the EU knows that whatever deal is agreed will be put to a vote of the British people, it will make sure that it is the worst possible deal that it can provide, in the hope that we will reject it, reverse the decision to leave and remain in the EU. For that reason, we cannot allow a second referendum to take place.

My third point is that any second referendum would cause further delay and uncertainty. People want us to get on with it. Business wants certainty: it wants to know what the end state is going to be. Any second referendum would delay that and create even more uncertainty, because even when we had agreed a deal with the EU, we would not know whether the British people were going to support it. British business would not know whether it was going to be the final outcome. If it was rejected, that would create further delay and uncertainty. Right now, more than anything, business wants to know what the state of play is going to be when we leave. Business wants certainty and to know what the circumstances are going to be. Any second referendum would cause further delay and create even more uncertainty.

[Layla Moran]

rose—

[Steve Double]

I am going to wind up now.

In the best interests of our country, we simply need to get on with it and deliver the best Brexit that we possibly can. We need to deliver what the British people gave us the instruction to do. They gave us that instruction and we need to respect it and deliver on it.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I find myself in an odd position. I was elected last year. I overcame a Tory majority of more than 9,500 votes, and yet in the debate since my election people seem to have completely forgotten that that election ever happened. We speak frequently about the will of the people in the referendum. That is true, but there was then a further asking of the people what they wanted. The Tory version of Brexit—the version that the Tories have been trying to deliver, badly, up until this last weekend, and look at how that has unravelled—was rejected.

Oxford West and Abingdon voted 62% to remain and, although 62% does not perhaps sound a lot, it is worth saying that the remainers in my constituency are so strongly remain that they put EU flags proudly on their doors, and the leavers are more, “Oh, on balance I want to leave”. As new facts have come to light, they are changing their minds in their swathes. There are plenty of emails in my inbox and, I am sure, in many inboxes.

Just this morning, I met a young activist who used to be a Tory party member and voted to leave in 2016. When he realised that he was not going to get the Norway/Switzerland-style Brexit that had been spoken about by many front-and-centre Brexiteers, he decided to leave the Tories and to join the Lib Dems. I did not know that, but he has done so because our position is absolutely clear.

In 2017, the electorate did make a choice. In the referendum, the will of the people was the will of the 52%—48% have been completely ignored, however. There was a whole other way this could have gone. Rather than the Prime Minister standing up and saying, “We are going to go for the hardest possible Brexit; we are going to leave the customs union; we are going to leave the single market; we are not going to involve Parliament; we are not going to release impact assessments”, there is another version of the past. Every step along the way, as a new Member of Parliament, I have felt that this Government do not really care about our opinions; all they want to do is to hold themselves together. The other version would have been for a Prime Minister to stand up, reach out across the House and say, “I am going to go the middle way and deliver that Norway/Switzerland soft Brexit.” That was the compromise position. That is not what has happened and that is why we are in the position we are in now.

[Bob Stewart]

I respectfully point out to the hon. Lady that the Conservatives got 43% of the vote at the last general election. That is a huge number—a very large percentage of the people, and larger than normal. The Conservative party got endorsement from the people beyond the referendum for its mandate to carry out Brexit.

[Layla Moran]

It was 43% but it was not enough to deliver sufficient numbers of Members of Parliament. In my constituency, I was elected on an extremely clear mandate to stop a hard Brexit. The Green party stood down, and swathes of Labour voters came over to me. In fact, many remainer Conservatives—this is what my in-box is stuffed with—are saying that they will never vote Tory again because of what this Government are doing to all sorts of sectors, business being one of them.

[Steve Double]

I am listening to the hon. Lady with great interest. Is she aware that many findings after the last general election showed that for the majority of British people, Brexit was not a big issue that drove their vote? They were far more concerned about domestic policy issues. A lot of people thought that Brexit was done with in the last election, and there is clear evidence that actually it did not drive many people’s votes last year—they were far more concerned about other matters.

[Layla Moran]

Indeed. That is why it is so striking that people do not now want to ask them what they think of this new settlement. The point of this debate is to ask the people and to trust the people. The people of Oxford West and Abingdon put me here to make the case on how Brexit is going to affect them and their families.

[Gareth Snell]

rose—

[Layla Moran]

Real people’s voices have been missing from this debate, so I am going to introduce some after taking this intervention.

[Gareth Snell]

The hon. Lady says that she was sent here to stop a hard Brexit, but the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) said that he was here to get an exit from Brexit. Is she opposed to a hard Brexit and therefore wanting a softer form of Brexit, or is she opposed to Brexit in its entirety?

[Layla Moran]

I personally feel that there is no deal better than the deal we already have. That is what we had in our manifesto and that is our clear mandate. As I said, I achieved an enormous swing, so I can only assume that my constituents understood that. The Conservatives were proposing a possible World Trade Organisation-style Brexit—much harder, I dare say, than what Labour is suggesting now. However, I would still categorise Labour’s position as also being for a hard Brexit, because at the time, soft Brexit was defined as staying in the single market and the customs union, and somehow the rhetoric has changed over time.

It would be interesting now to turn to Ross from Kidlington. I care about what people—my constituents—think rather than just what this House thinks. Ross said:

“We are beside ourselves with how this government is behaving: squabbling in its ranks, only interested in keeping their own nests feathered, telling outright lies to those who voted for Brexit…Why are MPs in the in the Labour party not following their own consciences and voting for what they really believe?”

I find fascinating the number of conversations we have outside this Chamber where MPs from across the House recognise how damaging Brexit is going to be. I do not understand how they can look their constituents in the eye knowing that their jobs may well go and knowing the effect on the economy. In Oxford West and Abingdon, we have one of the most buoyant economies in the country, but if we leave the single market, even we will face a medium-term depression. I cannot stand by and watch that happen.

I loved what Jonathan from Abingdon had to say:

“How, now two years post referendum, do the government have no plan to implement and it scares me more than anything else. Even though every expert opinion is that it will damage the country, including the governments own experts, they are still ploughing ahead with it seems the full support of the Labour party…Please continue to fight this crazy act of self-harm the government is proposing with everything you can.”

I intend to do that. These are my constituents and I am standing up for them today.

The point about a further referendum is that new facts have come to light. We are not just talking about the Northern Irish border, although that is one of the most alarming aspects.

Ryan, a Gibraltarian student at Keble College, said that Brexit

“poses an existential threat to my homeland…The fate of my country is out of the hands of Gibraltarians, and is being decided behind closed doors. I fear the Government may negotiate something of ours away without our consent.”

Then there are the universities—Oxford and Oxford Brookes—and Erasmus, Horizon 2020 and the science sectors. The first question I ever asked in this House was on Euratom. At the time, someone sidled up and said, “What’s that?” We did not entirely appreciate the full consequences of Brexit, and now we do. I am pleased to say that the House has taken that on very positively, but new facts have come to light, and business is what I am most concerned about.

It is not just about BMW, which is in Oxford. Fabulous Flowers wrote to me and said:

“We need to ensure a stable workforce with labour from other EU member states and all sectors of horticulture and flower growing, harvesting etc in the UK. We have to question the UK’s capability in terms of infrastructure and resources at points of entry to handle the level of import controls. A longer wait at the border could bring a disadvantage to flower imports in future as it could impact on quality or vase life. Flowers could end up more expensive.”

It is not just about big business; it is also about the little guys, and they matter too.

As a science teacher—that is what I did before I came to this place—I believe in evidence, and it is not just me. I know that because some of the kids I taught are now adults, and they believe in evidence too. It is only fair that if new evidence comes to light, people should be allowed to change their mind. If it is a deal that they did not vote for and is not what they expected, what could be any more democratic than going back to the people and making sure it was what they wanted in the first place?

Oral Answers to Questions

Layla Moran Excerpts

Wednesday 18th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

I praise the work of DeafKidz International, which has also received UK aid funding. We are doing many things. Through the Girls’ Education Challenge, we supported 46,000 girls with disabilities, including deaf girls, to access education.

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

It has never been more important to make the positive case for overseas aid. However, delivery of the global learning programme in schools ends in July. May we have an assurance that it will be replaced in time for September?

[Penny Mordaunt]

We are doing a refresh of some of those programmes. Clearly, programmes such as Connecting Classrooms will carry on and we are doing a refresh of the International Citizenship Service. We think these are important ways in which we can deliver on the global goals and help young people in our country to learn more about the rest of the world.

Military Action Overseas: Parliamentary Approval

Layla Moran Excerpts

Tuesday 17th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; it is important to have that freedom and flexibility. May I say how striking that comment is coming from him, as I believe he has served in both Iraq and Afghanistan?

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

Will the Prime Minister give way?

[The Prime Minister]

No, I am going to make progress. Quite a few Members wish to speak in the debate, and I have taken a lot of interventions.

The second reason is the nature of the information that I see as Prime Minister, along with the National Security Council and the Cabinet. The Government make use of a wide range of sources of information, both those in the public domain and secret intelligence. In this case, drawing on the lessons of the past, we made a rigorous assessment of the available open-source material and intelligence about the Douma attack. Indeed, when my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) looked me in the eye and asked me to tell him that it was the Syrian regime that was responsible, I could do so in part because of the intelligence and assessment I had seen, and because I had discussed that intelligence and assessment with senior security and military officials, the National Security Council and Cabinet.

In the post-Iraq era, it is natural for people to ask questions about the evidence base for our military actions, including when we cite intelligence. They want to see all the information themselves. But we have an obligation to protect the safety and security of our sources. We must maintain secrecy if our intelligence is to be effective now and in the future. We have obligations to our partners to protect the intelligence they share with us, just as they protect intelligence we share with them, and we have to be judicious even in explaining the types of intelligence we use in any given case, or risk giving our adversaries vital clues about where our information comes from.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

No, I am going to make some more progress.

The Government have access to all that information, but Parliament does not and cannot. This is not a question of whether we take Parliament into our confidence. It is a question of whether we take our adversaries into our confidence by sharing that material in a public forum. Officials have briefed Opposition leaders on Privy Council terms, and I have set out to the House elements underpinning our assessment, but our intelligence and assessment cannot be shared in full with Parliament. It is my responsibility to decide the way forward based on all the intelligence and information available to Government. I should make the decision as Prime Minister with the support of the Cabinet, and Parliament should hold me to account for that decision.

[Layla Moran]

I am extremely grateful to the Prime Minister for giving way. I found the statement on the evidence for it being Assad’s regime that carried out the chemical attack, on the type of helicopter and the movements, very compelling. Would she have been able to share just that evidence prior to the attack?

[The Prime Minister]

I was able to share more evidence with the House after the attack than I would have been able to share before the attack, and it is not possible to share with the House all the intelligence on which we base our judgments.

Oral Answers to Questions

Layla Moran Excerpts

Wednesday 28th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Oliver Dowden]

My hon. Friend raises a very important point. Cyber-security is a major priority for the whole of this Government, and our world-leading national cyber security strategy is supported by almost £2 billion of investment. It sets out measures to ensure that the public sector, and the wider economy, is cyber-secure.

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

T5. Yesterday, the Government called time on business in the House two hours early. Meanwhile, important Bills such as the draft Public Service Ombudsman Bill languishes in purgatory. My constituents are desperate for this Bill to be debated as it pertains to the AEA Technology pensions debacle. Will the Minister please push for this Bill to be sent to the Floor of the House?

[Mr Lidington]

These matters are always the subject of keen discussion between the business managers of all political parties. I am sure that the hon. Lady will encourage her party’s spokesman to make those representations.

EU Referendum: Electoral Law

Layla Moran Excerpts

Tuesday 27th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Tom Brake]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that equally helpful intervention. I hope that during this debate Members who heard that evidence will be able to contribute and update the House on what was said there, although I suspect that a lot of that information will have been contained in the papers this weekend, which I am sure many Members have spent hours assessing over the weekend and since.

I want to focus briefly on the Electoral Commission. This is how its website describes its role in relation to referendums:

“Our focus is on voters and on putting their interests first. Our objectives for referendums are that:…they should be well-run and produce results that are accepted…there should be integrity and transparency of campaign funding and expenditure”.

It is safe to say that neither of those objectives was met with respect to the EU referendum campaign—I am not blaming the Electoral Commission but others involved in the campaign.

What action has the Electoral Commission taken to date? The allegations we read about this weekend were new allegations, but there were existing allegations working their way through the system. I thank WhatDoTheyKnow, openDemocracy and FairVote for their work on this issue. They obtained internal emails from the Electoral Commission that described Darren Grimes’ spending as “unusual”. I think we can all agree it was remarkable that someone whose organisation in the first 10 weeks of its existence apparently managed to raise £107 was given £625,000 to spend in a completely uncontrolled manner. It is remarkable that such confidence was placed in that organisation and the one or two people behind it.

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

I spoke to some people in the industry about this, and they told me that unless there was collusion it would have been impossible to mine such big data in the timeframe the money was given to BeLeave. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is suspicious indeed?

[Tom Brake]

I do not want to comment directly on that, but clearly it is a very serious allegation that I am sure will be a subject of the Electoral Commission and police inquiries. The commission has confirmed that there is a live investigation under way and that therefore it cannot confirm what progress has been made, but it is under way, and I welcome that.

In the internal emails, the Electoral Commission described Grimes’ spending as “unusual” and found that he broke some of its rules, but it decided to take the matter no further as there were “no reasonable grounds” to believe that Vote Leave and Grimes had been working together.

I must say that the Electoral Commission will have to have very clear reasons if it does not believe this to be the case now, following those new allegations from three whistleblowers at the heart of the Vote Leave-BeLeave machine. It is worth underlining that they are new allegations. What we have heard from the supporters of Vote Leave is “All this has been investigated. There is nothing new here”, but these allegations from three whistleblowers at the centre of the organisation are completely new. These are matters that have not been investigated. Anyone who supported Vote Leave and is now saying, “Don’t bother, it has been done” is wrong.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas]

I recognise that the Chair of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee has been doing some incredibly important work this morning. Notwithstanding that, I still make the case that there is staggering hypocrisy among a large number of MPs who promised to enhance democracy by leaving the EU, but who cannot even be bothered to turn up to talk about the potential radical undermining of our democratic processes. I find that genuinely quite breathtaking.

I start by paying tribute to the dedicated, fearless journalism of Carol Cadwalladr over the past year. She has led us to the extraordinary revelations that we are debating this afternoon.

Much of the discussion so far has been about the validity of the referendum vote itself, but I want to argue that this goes much deeper and wider than that single vote, vastly important though it is. The revelations by The Guardian, Channel 4 and others over the past few days go right to the heart of the kind of country we think we are living in. I argue that they demonstrate that current electoral law is woefully inadequate. I think they show that the regulation governing our democratic processes urgently needs to be updated and reformed. They show, I believe, that something is rotten in the state of our democracy.

The combination of big money and big data is overwhelming the chronically weak structures that are supposed to protect us against cheating and fraud. As others have said, we are trying to apply laws from the analogue era to the very different reality of the digital age, and it simply is not working. It took the Information Commissioner almost a week to get authorisation to get through the front door of Cambridge Analytica, during which time presumably the delete button had been pressed a great many times. The Electoral Commission, meanwhile, has been investigating claims of the misuse of electoral funds for almost a year. Why on earth do we not have rules that require donations to be reported in real time, and the same for spending? Why do we not have a body with more resources and real teeth? Things urgently need to change.

Electoral law is based on two fundamental principles. The first principle is that parties and candidates compete on what should be a level playing field in terms of resources, which is presumably why we have national and local spending limits in elections. The second principle is that elections are open and transparent, so parties and candidates have to be transparent in their communications with the voters and it is unlawful to make false claims in those communications. The allegations about the true nature of the relationship between Vote Leave and BeLeave suggest that there may well have been cheating when it comes to the first principle, and the investigations into Facebook and Cambridge Analytica, and the spending of huge sums of money on micro-targeted political advertising based on data harvested from voters’ social media profiles, suggest that the second of these two principles is also under great strain in the digital age.

Frankly, Facebook’s desperate adverts on the back pages of Sunday’s newspapers, just a couple of days ago, suggest to me that it knows that its bubble is bursting. We now need to update the law to ensure that people are protected from this social media mega-monopoly. Just because the chief executives of Facebook and Google wear T-shirts to work and turn up on skateboards does not mean that they are not aggressive capitalists, and we need to get a bit wiser to that fact.

The law regulating campaign activity and finance—the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000—was drawn up almost 20 years ago, long before Facebook or Twitter even existed, let alone had any role in political campaigns. It is considerably more difficult to ensure the compliance of adverts on social media than the compliance of adverts in newspapers or on billboards. Voters simply do not know what is being done with their data by a company that, ultimately, wants to make as much money as possible from the information it has on each of us. Not surprisingly, the regulators struggle to regulate.

This undoubtedly presents a complex challenge to all politicians, as social media platforms overtake the national and local press and media through which we have traditionally communicated with our electorate, but without the same level of transparency and scrutiny. However, it is a challenge that we must meet. The need for a reprogramming of the way parties and campaigns are funded could not be greater. Whether it is donations from Russian oligarchs on one side of the House or from former Formula 1 bosses on the other side, people are sick and tired of a politics that is awash with big money without proper oversight. I argue that the case for state funding for political parties could scarcely be stronger.

[Layla Moran]

Does the hon. Lady share my concern that the House voted for the Democratic Unionist party’s donation not to be scrutinised before 2017, so that massive donation now cannot be scrutinised in the proper way? We do not know the origin of that cash.

[Caroline Lucas]

I absolutely share the hon. Lady’s concern; she is right that that should have been looked into at the time, rather than pushed into the long grass. It is yet another reason why I am calling for urgent cross-party talks on updating our online campaign regulations and reforming the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act, including consultation with the Electoral Commission and the Information Commissioner on what new powers and resources they need in order to fulfil their role in safeguarding our democracy.

The revelations by Shahmir Sanni about Vote Leave and BeLeave raise related but somewhat different questions, some of which need to be addressed to, and answered by, certain Members on the Government side of the House, for they strongly suggest that some of those who worked for the official Brexit campaign during the 2016 referendum, some of whom now work for the Prime Minister in Downing Street, committed criminal breaches of electoral law on overspending and collusion. Vote Leave, whose leading members included the current Foreign Secretary and Environment Secretary, formally declared it had spent £6.77 million during the 2016 campaign—this was within the £7 million limit. But that sum does not include a £625,000 donation that Vote Leave gave to BeLeave, the Brexit campaign aimed at students and young people, which BeLeave spent on the very same digital marketing company, Aggregate IQ, used by Vote Leave. As the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) set out powerfully, there is substantial evidence of constant communication between Vote Leave and BeLeave, which were based in the same office, shared the same computer drive and seem to have had advice going between them as to the setting up of their constitution, their bank account and so on. It is insulting to suggest that these two organisations were not co-ordinating very, very closely.

So it is simply not good enough for the Prime Minister to have airily dismissed the questions that were raised by these revelations as she did in the House yesterday. I might add that her attempts to brush off complaints about the disgraceful outing of Shahmir Sanni were beneath her and bring shame on her office. If the laws were broken, those involved need to be brought to justice, because if they are not, and if we do not fix the shortcomings of our electoral law and its regulation, this Government will go down in history as the one who sat and watched while the very lifeblood of our democracy drained away, and voters will have taken back control for nothing. That is why I also think we need an independent public inquiry to establish, as a matter of urgency, whether electoral law was broken by any of those working for Vote Leave and BeLeave, and, crucially, what current Ministers knew at the time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tommy Sheppard]

The right hon. Gentleman is ahead of me. I was going to say that I have had cause over recent weeks to wonder: what if we had done it differently? What if the designated campaign organisation had come to me and said, “We would like you to do this activity, and the best way to do it, because we do not want it in our budget, is if we set up a separate organisation. Just to make it easier for you, our lawyers have done the paperwork to set up the organisation. Just to make it easier for you, you can have our staff and you can work out of our office. Just to make it even easier for you, you don’t need to bother about writing the cheques, because we will book and pay for the hall and the production”? What would have happened if we had done that, I wonder? I am in no doubt about what would have happened: the Electoral Commission would have investigated. It would have found me and Yes Scotland in breach of the regulations. We would have been fined and we would have been reported to the procurator fiscal for prosecution on criminal charges.

I say that because that lived experience frames my opinion of the events we are talking about today, and my opinion is that this stinks to high heaven. In preparation for this debate, I looked at the original investigation and judgments of the Electoral Commission with regard to these complaints, and—I recommend hon. Members do this—at the High Court judgment on the application for judicial review of that decision. What it comes down to—what is absolutely central to this debate—is not whether different campaign organisations were arguing for Vote Leave, but whether they colluded to breach the expenditure limits that were set down. That is central.

Looking at the High Court judgment and other documents, it is clear that the most important thing is whether or not a common plan was in existence between Vote Leave and BeLeave, as defined under the 2000 Act. I have to say, in a situation where Vote Leave sets up a subsidiary organisation called BeLeave, uses its own personnel to establish it, manages to send it its lawyers and all sorts of support, and provides offices, computers and drives on the server for the same people, it is very difficult indeed to escape the conclusion that there was collusion and organisation between the two.

We are being asked to believe that Darren Grimes took a £600,000 contract and went to a data analytics firm in Canada, completely independently of people in Vote Leave, who had already spent £2.7 million with the very same company. It is literally unbelievable and we need to support the Electoral Commission and others in investigating this to the bottom.

[Layla Moran]

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that what would be even worse than any of this would be if the Electoral Commission came to the conclusion that it cannot prove it? That would say to me that there is something fundamentally wrong with the laws under which the organisations are operating. That is what this debate is about: how do we stop this happening again, should they not be found to have been colluding?

[Tommy Sheppard]

Indeed, and we will have to await the outcome of the Electoral Commission’s investigation before we consider whether the legal framework and the support that is provided for the Electoral Commission are in fact adequate for this task.

We have this new evidence. The Electoral Commission, by the way, had already reopened the investigation before the whistleblowing information came out in the last seven days, but we are surely indebted to Shahmir Sanni for what he has done in the service of democracy in this country. I have watched his video recordings and it is clear that we do not share the same point of view. We did not share the same point of view on Brexit during the campaign, and we do not share it now, but I do not think that anyone who watches those interviews can fail to be moved by the decency, integrity and bravery of that young man in coming forward and putting himself at risk. We owe him a great debt.

The response of our Government to the whistleblowing allegations therefore worries me. Others have mentioned this, but the Prime Minister’s explanation yesterday that this was a personal statement by Stephen Parkinson just does not hold water. How can it be a personal statement when someone is at a desk in No. 10 Downing Street, at the heart of Government—when they are on the payroll, issuing a statement from No. 10 Downing Street? This must be the first occasion in history, certainly that I can remember, when the Government have decided to attack a whistleblower by outing them as gay, causing them the possibility of actual harm to themselves and their family, and it is a disgrace.

UK/EU Future Economic Partnership

Layla Moran Excerpts

Monday 5th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I agree with my hon. Friend that the continuity Bills are unnecessary. What everybody needs to do—and certainly what we as a Government are doing—is focus on getting the arrangements right, particularly in relation to clause 11, and carry on negotiating to make sure we get it right for the future.

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

Staying in Euratom is vital for jobs and ground-breaking scientific research throughout the United Kingdom. Given that the Prime Minister now wants us to remain a member of EU agencies, and has accepted a role for the European Court of Justice, will she listen to those in the industry and ensure that we stay in Euratom?

[The Prime Minister]

I have referred to the interests that both the UK and the European Union have in our maintaining a close relationship with Euratom in the future. Membership of Euratom is an integral part of membership of the European Union, and we are coming out of Euratom as we are coming out of the EU, but, as the hon. Lady will know, we are making arrangements to ensure that we can maintain that close relationship.