Trade Bill - Amendments to Clause 2 on parliamentary approval of international trade agreements and treaties

Questions whether it is in order for the Government to group the amendments in a way that denies Members votes on specific amendments. Expresses concern over procedural fairness.

Expresses worries about the courts handling cases in the absence of defendants and raises concerns about vexatious motions against allies. Questions how Select Committees can be assured to handle clear cases of genocide effectively.

Asserts that Select Committees will feel free to look into any matter regardless of Government direction, questioning the limitations placed by the proposed amendments.

Argues against the notion that genocide investigations could be seen as propaganda and emphasises the importance of judicial determination on such serious matters.

Highlights historical unity in debates over genocide legislation and criticises the Government's procedural tactics. Argues that the proposed amendments undermine Parliament’s authority to scrutinise trade deals and protect standards.

Mr Iain Duncan Smith criticises the Government for deliberately bundling together various amendments to prevent a vote on genocide determination. He questions the consistency of the Government's stance, noting that while they claim genocide determination is a matter for courts in other contexts, their amendment shifts this responsibility to Select Committees.

[INTERVENTION] Mr Tim Loughton supports the idea that UK courts are competent under the International Criminal Court Act 2001 to prosecute genocide. He questions why the Minister would claim a Select Committee is superior to judicial determination by a court.

Supports Lords amendment 1B due to the lack of parliamentary scrutiny in trade negotiations and its potential impact on NHS independence. Expresses concerns about the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, highlighting the National Farmers Union's support for a transparent process requiring parliamentary agreement before ratification.

Opposes Lords amendment 3B due to its fundamental flaw of bringing the domestic courts into a novel area of jurisprudence related specifically to genocide in trade deal contemplation. Argues for his own amendment in lieu, which would enable Parliament to express a clear view and block a trade agreement with a genocidal state at the end of a parliamentary process.

Noted that they would leave it there, signifying an intervention without further elaboration on the amendment or position.

Mr. Wright expresses reservations about the proposed judicial process outlined in the original amendment 3B, suggesting that credible reports of genocide should trigger parliamentary scrutiny rather than waiting for formal court judgments. He supports an alternative amendment to ensure Parliament's right to refuse trade deals based on evidence of genocidal activities, even without a legal determination.

Mr. MacNeil argues for thorough pre-deal parliamentary scrutiny, noting the importance of informed negotiators and the economic implications of rushed decisions. He critiques the lack of access to key information during previous negotiations, such as with Japan, and calls for better transparency and trust in Select Committees.

Mr. Fox opposes giving power to the House of Lords or courts over trade policies, advocating instead for robust parliamentary oversight at the initial stages of negotiating mandates. He stresses that credible intelligence should guide decisions on genocidal activities without waiting for formal judicial confirmation.

Mr. Chris Bryant supports the amendment and argues that Britain should not trade with countries practising genocide, highlighting the current situation in China's Xinjiang province as a clear case of genocide. He criticises the Government for preventing the House from standing clearly against human rights abuses.

Ms. Katherine Fletcher opposes the Lords amendment, fearing that it would have unintended consequences such as difficulty in proving genocide and potential manipulation by dictatorial regimes if courts do not find sufficient evidence for genocide.

Mr. Greg Hands defends the Government's position, arguing that it is a matter for Parliament to decide what should come before it and emphasises the importance of the Select Committee in this context rather than judicial proceedings. He highlights the steps taken by the Foreign Secretary to address concerns regarding trade with China.