Transgender Conversion Therapy

Layla Moran Excerpts

Monday 13th June 2022 Westminster Hall

[Elliot Colburn]

That concern has been brought forward, but as I hope to say later, there is a way that we can alleviate those concerns and still pass an inclusive ban.

I thank the survivors who came forward to share their stories. It is true that conversion practices are happening in the UK right now. It is not something that happened decades ago but has now stopped; those kind of practices still happen in the UK today. Nor is it only happening here; the threat or action of sending people overseas to undergo such practices is still happening.

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

I commend the hon. Gentleman for listening directly to those who have been affected by this issue. It is often the voices of trans people that are missing from this debate. I was contacted by a constituent who said,

“as a trans woman, surely I deserve to feel safe, have some dignity and live my life in peace without being demonised?”

Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that the way that the exclusion has happened serves to further demonise an already demonised group?

[Elliot Colburn]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady. I want to talk about some of the concerns that have been brought forward about a trans-inclusive ban, particularly those focused around unintended consequences —the potential of criminalising legitimate conversations between trans people and, for example, their parents, doctors or religious leaders. Those concerns are legitimate, and it comes down to us as legislators to ensure that we pass good legislation that does not catch those out.

I and many other hon. Members have seen the legal evidence provided to the Government Equalities Office that shows that it is perfectly possible to pass a ban without such unintended consequences. What is important is having a tightly worded Bill with clear language, as well as an extensive list in the legislation about what is and is not intended to be caught by a ban on conversion therapy. Let us be very clear: campaigners who have been fighting for this say that a ban is not intended to capture legitimate conversations, questions or even disagreements between individuals and their parents, doctors or religious leaders, for example. Legitimate explorative therapies, the teaching of scripture or even the ability to say that they do not agree with a person’s identity is not intended to be covered within the scope of a ban, and that should be explicitly stated within it.

The argument is also made that to exclude trans people is the right thing to do because sexual orientation and gender identity are different and so should not be covered by the same legislation. However, although they are different parts of a person’s individual identity, separating them would create big problems for the Government in law, as many trans people are also LGB, and vice versa. Plus, I believe that it would allow conversion therapy for LGB people to continue through the back door, because it could be claimed that it was being done because of their gender identity. We have seen that happening already. I have heard of cases of survivors who have come forward—for example, camp gay men and butch lesbians who have undergone conversion therapy because of their gender identity, not because of their sexual orientation. I believe that that is the reason why all leading medical, psychological and therapy organisations back an inclusive ban. Twenty-five organisations have signed up to the memorandum of understanding on conversion therapy in the UK, and more than 370 religious leaders from around the world are also calling for a ban on conversion therapy.

However, I do not think that I can put the need for a trans-inclusive ban much better than by referring to this perverse situation, which I would just like colleagues to consider. It is based on a real-life example of a set of twins—one gay and one trans. Both are forced to undergo hours of talking therapies to get them to change their identity. They are taken for exorcisms, with people shouting over them. They are monitored to ensure that they are not meeting anyone who might be considered “wrong”. They are unable to seek out accredited counselling and support and they have to endure treatment that is degrading and shaming.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wera Hobhouse]

I totally agree. What is damaging about all these practices is that they have an outcome before they even start. That is why they are so damaging.

[Layla Moran]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that if we end up not banning all forms of conversion therapy, all it will do is encourage families to go further underground to seek practices, particularly through their churches? I know of a family whose church reached out to them. They were then referred to a quack in America who performed abhorrent practices on a young teenager who immediately said to their parents, “This is making me feel like who I am is less than I am.” Is my hon. Friend concerned that if the Government do not act, parents will not know where to turn?

[Wera Hobhouse]

I totally agree. We have to say this again and again: this is not about professional medical treatment and therapy. The conversion therapies that need to be banned are pseudoscientific practices, often conducted in private settings and, most crucially, they do not have an open outcome, but are aimed at changing what a person is.

Legal advice recently published by the Good Law Project makes it clear that the Government risk getting embroiled in legal challenges by breaching article 14 of the European convention on human rights. The advice states that

“the difference in treatment between sexual orientation and gender identity would need to be justified and proportionate.”

So far, the only justification that the Government have provided is to say that the issue is complex.

Why are we even having this debate? Opposition to a trans-inclusive ban is entirely built on stoking fear and division, based on deliberate misinformation. By the Government’s own admission, NHS gender identity services will not stop people having exploratory conversations with their doctors. Legal services will not be affected by a ban. There is no evidence of any negative impact in the countries that have already introduced a ban. Let us be clear: we are talking about preventing the abuse of LGBT+ and gender non-conforming people—our fellow human beings. We need to prevent abuse.

Furthermore, neither would religious freedom be affected by a change in the law. Religious freedom is the freedom to worship without discrimination. As a Christian, I have the right to practise my religion without discrimination. I do not have the right to cause harm. The Church of England has acknowledged that, stating that conversion practices have

“no place in the modern world”.

Nearly all countries that have banned gay conversion therapy have also banned gender conversion therapy. Canada, France and New Zealand, to name a few, have yet to encounter problems with freedom of speech or religious belief. It is baffling—I disagree that it is about getting votes—that the Conservative Government are not committed to banning trans-inclusive conversion therapy, even though their own voters are largely in favour of such a ban. Northern Ireland has moved a motion to ban conversion therapy in all forms. Scotland hopes to ban it by the end of 2023. The Government must follow suit.

The Equalities Minister called this country a global leader on LGBT rights, but it seems the Government have forgotten what the letter T stands for. How can we possibly call ourselves global leaders if we knowingly and purposefully fail to protect trans people from abhorrent practices? I plead with the Government to listen to what is overwhelmingly a consensus in this room—and outside—and make sure we ban conversion therapy in all its forms.

Gender Recognition Act

Layla Moran Excerpts

Monday 21st February 2022 Westminster Hall

[Miriam Cates]

No, I will make some progress. Every cell in the adult human body has the same genetic code. However much an individual may want to change their sex through surgery, hormone treatment or by changing their lifestyle, it is just not scientifically possible because our sex is written in every single cell.

Sex is immutable. Not only is it immutable, but our sex determines and influences a large part of our identity as people: our biology, psychology and life choices; whether we can become a mother or father; and what diseases we may suffer from. These are established and proven scientific facts, not a matter of individual beliefs or feelings, however strongly they may be held—and I absolutely accept that they are strongly held.

To allow somebody easily to change their sex in law would be to accept as a society that this material reality is not important or that it can be changed in a straightforward way. I do not believe that that is a wise route to take, and it would have wide-ranging repercussions in other aspects of law.

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

Just on a point of clarity, the hon. Lady seems to suggest in this section of her speech that gender recognition and change should not be part of our law currently. Have I misunderstood her?

[Miriam Cates]

I will come to that. I believe that what we currently have is a good compromise, and I will explain why.

As well as the broader picture, there are specific impacts of GRA reform that would be significant, such as threatening sex-based rights. There are sound reasons of privacy, safety and dignity for women’s requirement for single-sex spaces and services. When using changing rooms and sleeping accommodation or for those in prison, women and girls have a right to expect that there are no males using those spaces. Self-ID could threaten those sex-based rights. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington that we are awaiting guidance on the matter. It could row back decades of progress on women’s equality.

--- Later in debate ---

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy), the city of my alma mater. I enjoyed her contribution about listening before taking part in these difficult debates. I pay huge tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for his tone when opening the debate. It was an important lesson in how to conduct these difficult conversations.

I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price); over the last two years I have spent many hours with her discussing these issues, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on global lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT+) rights. We tried to put together a common position in the group that could be agreed by all LGBT groups of all the major political parties, to understand all the reasonable concerns coming from people who are described as gender critical, and to meet those anxieties with all the reasonable reassurances that people ought to be able to expect. It is a great shame and pity that we did not manage to convince the Government to adopt that position within a wider statement of reform of the Gender Recognition Act. I urge the Minister to revisit that statement—it is still absolutely valid and is sitting on the website of the all-party parliamentary group. I urge him to look at it as a basis of how to move forward and find reassurance on the side issues around the Gender Recognition Act.

What we need is for the heat to be taken out of this debate and to let the light in. As many Members have pointed out, what a gender recognition certificate does is very limited. It simply allows a trans person to record their gender accurately on their birth certificate, and to be fitted into the appropriate actuarial models for pension provision and apply for a job or university degree without fear of being outed by default. They do not have any legal bearing on provisions around single-sex spaces, which are governed by the provisions of the Equality Act. These problems are in large part technical, but they have an outsized impact on an individual trans person’s rights to privacy and dignity. As a Conservative committed to protecting the rights and freedoms of the individual, I would like to see this process improved so that it can best serve the people it is meant to protect.

The current system is byzantine and bureaucratic, and contains provisions that, after 26 years—as others have said—seem to border on the cruel. In particular, I highlight the requirement to live in one’s new gender for two years, and the spousal veto. I am not sure that I can imagine a universally satisfactory benchmark of masculinity or femininity. Without any agreed definition, how can it be reasonable or fair to expect any person to live within such poorly circumscribed limits? I do not envy the members of the Gender Recognition Panel who have to hack their way through this Gordian knot of legal ambiguity and cultural stereotyping to implement their decisions.

As a gay man who was married to, and is now separated from, a woman with whom I have two children and am still friends, I know all too well that coming out as an LGBT+ person can have significant effects on a marriage. It is also clear that the current system serves only to make very personal decisions even more difficult, and giving one partner extraordinary control over another’s autonomy does not seem right today. I recognise that in certain circumstances, one partner’s transition may affect the integrity of a marriage, and I agree with the Women and Equalities Committee’s report that it would be sensible to offer more streamlined routes to annulment in this instance.

Ultimately, the failures of the system as it currently stands are evidenced by the minuscule take-up of the gender recognition certificate. Only 4,910 certificates had ever been issued at the time of the 2018 consultation—as little as 1% to 3% of the UK trans population. That is despite the fact that when surveyed, the vast majority of trans people declare an interest in obtaining a gender recognition certificate. It is patent that the process is not fit for purpose and does not adequately serve the population it is meant to protect, and none of the changes introduced in 2020 have changed that at all.

The recent appointment of Lord Herbert as the Government’s special envoy on LGBT rights, and my hon. Friend the Minister joining the equalities team and responding to this debate, are a happy harbinger of this Government’s renewed commitment to the dignity and rights of trans people. Reform of the GRA would not only bring the UK in line with other western countries such as Ireland, Denmark, France and Greece, but would bring the technical aspects of the law governed by the GRA in line with other aspects of UK law today.

[Layla Moran]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the most egregious parts of the current process is that there is no right to appeal, which completely goes against the principles of natural justice in almost every other part of our statute book? That is one aspect that is not planned to be changed.

[Crispin Blunt]

The hon. Lady has made her point extremely well and succinctly.

Changing the gender recorded on one’s passport or driving licence does not require a gender recognition certificate. Changing the gender on one’s bank account or medical and employment records does not require a gender recognition certificate, and changing one’s name does not require a gender recognition certificate. I can see no logical reason as to why the gender marker on the fundamental document that gives entitlement to one’s nationality and from which every other piece of one’s identity flows should be subject to more prohibitive regulation than any of those other documents and processes, but the fundamental importance of the birth certificate means that there needs to be a gender recognition certificate process. To continue to enshrine that inconsistency within British equality law only exposes trans people to the threat of discrimination.

Reform of the GRA would form a simple and natural component of the Government’s agenda to harmonise equality law and implement a practical and purposeful policy to make a tangible change to the lives of trans people. Some 137,000 putting their name to the petition we are debating today ought to give the Government pause for thought. That is as many people as took part in a massive consultation on the GRA in the first place. This issue matters; it is not an enormous change and we should make it.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher.

As many have said already, the discussion and debate around trans rights has become divisive and fractious. It is really important that we state that it absolutely should not be. It should be rooted in evidence, yes, but also in compassion and—others have used this word, and I could not agree more—love. That means love for those on all sides, including people I do not necessarily agree with.

In my surgeries, I have spoken to constituents from the trans community, to parents of trans children, and to those who describe themselves as gender critical. In fact, I spent many hours in a Zoom room with someone from the gender-critical community and someone who is non-binary—I am also from the LGBT community. We sat and we chewed it out. We spoke about everything and tried to get to the bottom of where we agreed, which was on most of it, and where we did not. That, I am afraid, is where some of the rub lies. One thing we understood was that our understanding of the words “gender” and “sex” differed. For those on the gender-critical side, the two were different words. For me, frankly, they are synonyms; it is just that one was used more recently. It could well have been replaced in the 2004 Act.

We need to appreciate that those on the gender-critical side are valid; they are entirely allowed their point of view. However, I will put it on the record that I profoundly disagree with much of the gender-critical point of view and especially with those arguments that in any way imply that trans people are a danger to society and women, because they are not.

Drawing false equivalence between trans people and predatory sex offenders, which I have to say is where a lot of the arguments have ended up over the years that I have been debating this, does not do justice to many people who have sincerely held views around same-sex spaces or whatever. That is not where those people want the debate to go, but there are some people who draw those inferences. We need to call that out as just wrong.

The Gender Recognition Act is not fit for purpose. I am glad that the Government seem to recognise that in the modest reforms that they intend to make. Rather than getting bogged down in the legalese and the what-aboutery, I wanted to give whatever time I had today over to the voices of trans people and their families, so I contacted some of my constituents and said, “Right, you’ve got 150 words. What do you want to say?” I want to make it clear that I have not changed a single word of what they have written.

The first, a mother of a trans child, said:

“The bullying and harassment my child suffered at school took over our lives for a year and a half. I was constantly attending hearings, talking to the school, and making arrangements to move schools.

But I would have gone to any lengths necessary to protect my child. I have a background in education and knew what I could do to make the school listen. It worries me that there are young trans people who don’t have supportive adults to help them through.

Current legislation means young trans people have no legal protection from being outed or harassed. I don’t understand what good reason anyone could have for failing to protect a vulnerable minority in this way.

For my child, once they turned 18 and were able to get a GRC, it gave them the chance to go through life without the fear of being outed. That means having a reasonable chance to live free from discrimination and harassment.”

Many have asked, “What is the point of a GRC?” Well, for that child, it was everything.

Another constituent, a trans woman, told me:

“I knew when I was 4 years old that I was trans. I grew up during Section 28, believed it was not okay to come out, and that I would be bullied if I did. I began to medically transition 9 years ago and still don’t have a Gender Recognition Certificate.

The bureaucracy, money, and invasiveness are significant barriers. I don’t think changing your legal gender needs to be as simple as changing your address at a bank. I understand there are processes that need to be in place. But there is a balance to be struck.

And we cannot ignore non-binary people simply because they don’t fit into our current structures.

I work with young trans people in my youth groups and the real issues for them are mental health and access to gender identity services.

Earlier this year I lost one of my young people to suicide.

We need reform of the GRA, but also understand that transitioning isn’t just about changing your name on a bank statement.

The government needs to listen to the trans community, and reform services to make sure we don’t lose any more of our young people.”

Reforming the Gender Recognition Act will not solve all these problems—it will not reduce waiting times for gender identity services, lessen the impact of gender dysphoria or eliminate discrimination and prejudice—but it will make it easier for a person to apply for legal recognition of their gender. The current process is long, medicalised and intrusive. Improving the process builds a legal framework that respects trans people and acknowledges their lived experience.

My desire as a liberal is for every person in our country, whoever they are, to feel not just accepted but celebrated and supported by society to live a fulfilled and productive life. However, the fact is that for far too many trans people, this country is moving in the wrong direction. Let us properly reform the Gender Recognition Act rather than just tinkering around the edges, which is the Government’s current plan. It is a broken system, it needs fixing, and I simply urge the Government to think again.

Oral Answers to Questions

Layla Moran Excerpts

Thursday 10th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Graham Stuart]

I thank the hon. and learned Lady for her reasonable question. It is a delight to have an SNP Member in the Chamber actually championing business and looking to open up markets. We have one of the most rigorous and thorough export licensing regimes in the world, and we are proud of it. Every application is looked at on a case-by-case basis against the consolidated criteria. However, I will ensure that a meeting is set up for her with the appropriate Minister to discuss this.

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

Happy birthday, Mr Speaker.

Two weeks ago, we heard that Jimmy Lai, the owner of the largest pro-democracy newspaper in Hong Kong, had not only been sentenced for a second time but has now had his assets frozen. This step makes it incredibly hard to continue to fund his journalistic enterprises, which in turn has a chilling implication for a free press in Hong Kong. Colleagues across this House have called on the Government to implement Magnitsky sanctions, but there is concern that the UK’s sluggishness to implement sanctions is because the Government seek a future trade deal with China. Can the Minister clarify: is the prospect of a future deal causing this Government to treat China with leniency it does not deserve?

[Graham Stuart]

It is one of the abiding characteristics of the left in general that if they cannot find a scare story they invent one. This Government are clear: we are not seeking a free trade agreement with China. We have led the world in challenging China where we have found it necessary to do so. Working with international partners, we seek to maximise impact on any actions China takes that run counter to its international treaty obligations, including detentions without trial, detention of human rights defenders, and persecution of some religious and ethnic minorities. We work with allies on the most effective means to challenge it. On 30 June, at the 44th session of the UN Human Rights Council, the UK read out a formal statement on behalf of 28 countries highlighting concerns about the human rights situation in Hong Kong and Xinjiang. I hope that the hon. Lady and other Opposition Members will never again suggest that we would do anything to put trade ahead of our responsibilities on human rights.

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

If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for International Trade (Elizabeth Truss)]

Last week the UK agreed in principle a new trade deal with Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein worth £22 billion that brings opportunities for British exporters and services, from farmers to lawyers to musicians. It is the first trade deal ever to include provisions on mobile roaming, and it brings benefits to UK fish processing, supporting 18,000 jobs in Scotland, East Yorkshire and north Lincolnshire.

[Layla Moran [V]]

Last month, Members in all parts of the House were horrified by the appalling outbreak of violence between Israel and Gaza. Can the Secretary of State set out whether British arms exports were used in any way against innocent civilians in that conflict? If she is unable to do so, does she not agree that the inability to know where our arms are being used, and what for, is hugely concerning given the potential breaches of international law?

[Elizabeth Truss]

We welcomed the announcement of a ceasefire in Israel and Gaza last month. We are committed to a durable ceasefire. As the Under-Secretary of State for International Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) mentioned, we have one of the most robust export control regimes in the world and we take these issues very seriously.

Trade Bill

Layla Moran Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments & Ping Pong & Ping Pong: House of Commons
Tuesday 19th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con) [V]]

It is a great privilege to be called in this debate. I spoke on Second Reading, but today I am speaking in opposition to the Lords amendments. Before I say anything else, I should make it clear that I am a huge supporter and a friend of Lord Alton, a person of tremendous integrity, and I respect what those who are supporting the amendments are seeking to do, but are we really saying that on genocide—the most heinous crime imaginable—the Government’s trade policy should be reliance on the ability to go to a court? Surely to goodness, if we in this House believe that genocide is occurring, we should be acting a lot more swiftly and a lot more decisively than simply seeking the opinion of judges. It is this Parliament and this House that should be acting, and forcing a Government of any persuasion to take action against any country in the world engaged in genocide.

I urge colleagues to think carefully about what they are seeking to do. What would happen if Parliament decided that genocide was occurring and action had to be taken, but the courts felt that the bar for what determined genocide was not met? What action would be taken then? Would that tie the hands of Government? Would it mean that action, whether on trade or otherwise, was constrained? That would be one of the concerns with the amendment. I do not believe that supporting this measure would, to use the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), give us moral courage. The opposite is true. It would allow some people to say, “It is now up to the courts to decide. It is not a matter for Parliament.” If we believe in moral courage, it is for Parliament to show it, take action, challenge the Government, and hold them to account when we believe that genocide or any other significant human rights abuses are occurring, whether in relation to trade or anything else.

I am also very much reassured by the contribution from the Minister for Trade Policy. As a member of the Select Committee on International Trade, I can say that we will use all the powers available to us—and will seek more powers as time rolls on—to make sure there is scrutiny, and that Parliament carries out its role and looks at continuity or rollover agreements. This is not a matter of accepting continuity agreements as they stand. As those agreements move from being continuity rollover agreements, as they are now in most cases, to something country-specific or trade bloc-specific, this House absolutely needs more of a voice in making sure that nothing in there is detrimental to the British people.

Above all, it is important that this Bill goes through; after all, is it about ensuring that trade takes place and the prosperity of our constituents is protected. More importantly, it is about vulnerable countries around the world—ones that are desperate to trade with the UK in order to enrich their populations and take themselves out of poverty. It is really important that this Bill goes through to allow that to happen. It has my support.

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

The Liberal Democrats will today vote to put human rights at the centre of our country’s trade policy. Our party has a long history of leading the way in upholding human rights, from our opposition to South African apartheid to the late Paddy Ashdown’s role in Bosnia and Herzegovina. We are proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with colleagues in all parts of this House on that frontline again today.

The world is watching us, and we have a choice: to make a bold, confident statement about our fundamental commitment to human rights or accept this Government’s buccaneering approach to trade, in which effective scrutiny, rights and freedoms are trumped by self-interest. We of course back Lords amendment 2, which requires the Government to conduct due diligence and report to the House on the human rights implications of trade deals, but I wish to focus in particular on Lords amendment 3, the so-called genocide amendment.

Is there anything that blackens humanity’s soul more than genocide? Edmund Burke famously said:

“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

For too long, in cases of suspected genocide, despite many good men and women raising the alarm, nothing has been exactly what happens, and it is time to change that. I believe that what is happening to the Uyghurs in Xinjiang is genocide. Of course, it is not the only instance of genocide being committed in the world right now, but it is not for me or for this Government to make the legal determination; that is quite rightly a matter for the courts, but the Chinese Government, by virtue of their position, regularly block routes to such determinations, and so we tie ourselves up in knots while the perpetrators of these gross atrocities go largely unchallenged, leaving victims and survivors without justice.

The UK needs a practical mechanism for fulfilling its international legal obligations on genocide, and Lords amendment 3 provides that. It is based on the world as it is, not the world as we hope it to be. Allowing UK judges to make an advisory, preliminary determination is a necessary step if the UK is to lead by example and meet its obligations. That determination can then be taken up in international courts, but we will have made our position clear.

The Government say that they would revoke an agreement well before we reached that stage. If so, why not just accept the amendment? It does not prohibit them from doing that. A number of colleagues have talked about Parliament taking action, challenging Government and standing up on this issue. Well, in 2016, Parliament voted unanimously to recognise the Yazidi genocide, and the Government ignored it. Can the Minister tell us what exactly has changed since then?

This amendment is backed by the International Bar Association, the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the Muslim Council of Britain and many others, and it has support on both sides of the House. Never again should we wring our hands in horror after the fact, saying we should and could have done more. “Never again”—words we use every Holocaust Remembrance Day, and words that we today have a chance to live up to.

[Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con) [V]]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate on this important piece of legislation. I welcome this Trade Bill, and believe it is vital for our country as we move forward as an independent trading nation and navigate the turbulent economic situation that we face as a result of the global coronavirus pandemic. Existing trade agreements and the future ones we can sign will be crucial in our recovery from the coronavirus shock to the economy, and will give us the platform to become a major independent global trader. It will say to the world, “The UK is open for business; come trade with us.”

As I have said in the House on many occasions, it is so important that we uphold our high animal health and welfare and farming standards in existing and future trade deals. As an MP and veterinary surgeon, I was gutted that we were not able to secure that in the Agriculture Act 2020. We missed a real opportunity for the UK to make the powerful statement that we can be a beacon in these areas—to say, “If you wish to trade with us, you must come up to our high standards in animal health and welfare and farming.” I will continue to stand up for the farmers in Penrith and The Border and across Cumbria and the wider UK. We have the best farmers, and produce great food using high standards. We should be very proud of that.

I welcome the fact that the Government listened to colleagues on both sides of the House, to Minette Batters and the NFU, and to the British public, and created the Trade and Agriculture Commission and put it on a statutory footing. However, we can go further with parliamentary scrutiny of trade deals, including with the option for the House and relevant Select Committees to amend and block deals, not just delay them. Accordingly, I will be supporting amendments to increase parliamentary scrutiny; to uphold our high animal welfare, food production and environmental standards in trade deals; and to further bolster the Trade and Agriculture Commission.

I am pleased that the Government have repeatedly assured the House that products such as chlorinated chicken and hormone-treated beef will remain banned in the UK. However, in drafting trade deals, a practical solution would be to reaffirm that ban, and specify other banned products, such as ractopamine-fed pork, excessive use of antimicrobials, use of bovine somatotropin and use of growth promoters. If bans on those products were written into animal welfare chapters in trade deals, that would make it clear that these products are off the table, allowing other acceptable products to be traded. That would drive up animal welfare standards globally. From speaking to prospective trading partners, I know that this approach could work and be acceptable; they would merely exclude these products from shipments to the UK. I hope the Government will continue to listen and move on these issues, which are important to my constituents and folk across the United Kingdom.

I truly believe that we have the potential to be an outward-looking, ethical, progressive country with a trade policy that matches that, and I believe that this Conservative Government have the appetite to do that. Maintaining our high standards in animal health and welfare, farming and food production is pivotal. As this Trade Bill completes its journey, I wish it well.

Global Britain

Layla Moran Excerpts

Monday 11th January 2021 Commons Chamber

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

Global Britain—what does that mean? Here is what I hope it means: a United Kingdom that leads on the world stage, defending and strengthening the international rules-based order; a United Kingdom that puts human rights, social justice and ending global inequality at the heart of its work and lives those values in its trade agreements; and a United Kingdom that recognises there is no planet B and that it is about deeds, not words.

What do this Government’s deeds tell us about their definition of global Britain? It seems to me it means isolation from our closest allies, cosying up to presidents who incite violence and sedition and reneging on manifesto promises to the world’s poorest by cutting the aid budget. If that is global Britain, we must change direction now.

Coronavirus knows no borders and to truly defeat it we have to protect those in lower-income countries who are going to struggle to access the vaccine. Credit where credit is due, the UK has helped to put $1 billion into the COVAX facility, but I remain deeply concerned by global vaccine inequity. COVAX is committed to vaccinating up to 20% of the populations of the countries covered by it, but the other 80% must be provided for from elsewhere, and the vaccine companies are overwhelmed. How do we know that they are not prioritising the highest bidders and the biggest orders? In effect, are we creating a higher income, lower income divide? I fear we are, and it is not right. The UK must show global leadership and do more.

Take the example of Palestine. The situation there is dire. Many have rightly applauded Israel’s incredible effort to vaccinate its population, but we should note the programme excludes the 5 million Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The vaccine has been coming into illegal settlements. Israeli settlers are being vaccinated, but their Palestinian labourers living only a few hundred metres away are not. It is heartbreaking, and if we can help them in Palestine or elsewhere, then we should. We have ordered 350 million doses of vaccine for a population of 66.5 million. Even with wastage and the need for two doses, what are the plans for the rest? Can the Minister confirm what we will do to support lower-income countries further?

Finally, on aid, I want to put a marker in the sand. The Government do not need to legislate for the temporary cut. The law itself is designed to allow Governments not to meet 0.7% in an emergency, as unwise and cruel as such a cut may be. The only reason to bring legislation would be to cement the cut, using the current economic crisis as a smokescreen. I hope I can count on the support of other colleagues who have spoken against the aid cut in the House to fight this move should it come. It is not necessary and it needs to be resisted.

Oral Answers to Questions

Layla Moran Excerpts

Thursday 22nd February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

I reassure my hon. Friend that we take domestic violence very seriously. We will shortly bring forward a consultation ahead of a new domestic violence Bill that will address that heinous crime and, I believe, start to reduce the amount of domestic abuse and violence that exists in this country.

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

There is strong anecdotal evidence to suggest that girls are missing days of school due to period poverty. During my Westminster Hall debate, the then Minister for Women said that she wanted to commission research, and in her answer earlier today, the Minister for Women, the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) suggested that that has happened. May I ask what has been commissioned, what research is being considered, and when it will be published before the House?

[Victoria Atkins]

We have sought to establish whether there has been any rigorous national assessment of the prevalence of period poverty and its impact on attendance, but none appears to be available. Last summer, we asked for help from the Association of School and College Leaders forum, and we received a limited response. We are trying to produce an analysis of our absence data to look for evidence of period poverty, and we will publish the findings of that in due course.