Trade Bill - After Clause 2 - Trade agreements and genocide

Noted that financial privilege is engaged by Lords amendment 3E. No position was taken on the bill or amendments.

Argued in favour of the Government's amendment that supports a process ensuring parliamentary scrutiny and debate when credible reports of genocide are raised concerning proposed free trade agreements. Emphasised that this does not make determinations on genocide but guarantees debate where necessary.

Intervened to question if the Government was misrepresenting the situation regarding parliamentary judicial committees. Suggested that there is a contradiction in opposing both outside courts and parliamentarians making determinations.

Intervened to point out a potential inconsistency in Government's objections regarding judicial determination of genocide, suggesting that both external courts and parliamentary committees are being opposed.

Argues that trade deals should not ignore human rights considerations, particularly in light of atrocities committed against the Uyghur population by China. References genocide charges as a reason to reject trade agreements.

Supports the amendment, criticising the Government for their stance on the quasi-judicial committee. Argues that the Government's definition of 'quasi-judicial' can be applied to any Select Committee in the House of Commons, undermining the integrity of the proposed arrangement.

Intervenes briefly during Iain Duncan Smith's speech to highlight that Uyghurs do not come under the remit of the Government’s amendment, and therefore would be given no protection by this House.

Noted but does not provide arguments or stance.

Clarifies the procedural aspect of speech timing, stating it is a mistake if the countdown timer is running. Does not contribute to the debate on the amendment.

Supports the Government's position by arguing against making generic law based on specific cases, highlights that the House can already vote down any free trade agreement through existing legislation and upholds democratic principles.

The speaker supports Lord Alton’s amendment as it ensures a consistent approach to genocide without excluding the Uyghurs. She highlights the severity of human rights abuses against the Uyghur community, including forced sterilisation and birth rate drops, underscoring the need for decisive action.

The speaker criticises the Government's reluctance to acknowledge genocide as a political issue and highlights their hypocrisy in avoiding judicial determination due to China’s veto. She supports Lord Alton’s amendment for its practical approach, urging Members to vote for it despite procedural difficulties.

The speaker supports the Government's position that judicial determination should rest with competent courts. She emphasises the need for practical methods in upholding human rights and argues that the amendment would undermine parliamentary confidence by involving High Court challenges.

The speaker supports Lord Alton’s amendment as a clear statement against trade deals with genocidal states. She criticises the Government for not leveraging trade power to demand human rights improvements from trading partners and urges them to listen to cross-party voices.

Critiques the amendment for being constitutionally inaccurate, arguing that former judges should not sit on a parliamentary committee as judges but as members of Parliament. Proposes using Standing Orders to set up a Joint Committee instead.

Intervenes, highlighting the concern that Select Committees may not have sufficient expertise to determine genocide and suggests that former judges would be better suited.

Intervenes, notes the contradiction of his amendment with the Government's position but does not provide detailed arguments against the current amendment.

Supports the amendment, emphasising the moral obligation to prevent complicity with genocidal regimes. Argues that international courts are ineffective due to China's veto power and urges Members to vote based on conscience.

Advocates for Parliament's role in deciding trade deals based on evidence of genocide. Criticises the Government's evasion and argues that Parliament should consider values over economic interests.

Supports the need for parliamentary scrutiny but questions if this amendment is the right mechanism. Acknowledges the difficulty in proving genocide and supports a lower level of proof to stimulate intervention.

The amendment creates a Parliamentary Judicial Committee which is constitutionally illiterate and would undermine the judiciary. The Trade Bill does not cover human rights issues related to Xinjiang; such matters should be addressed through foreign policy measures.