← Back to House of Commons Debates
Trade Bill - After Clause 2 - Northern Ireland: Non-Discrimination in Goods and Services
19 January 2021
Lead MP
Greg Hands
Debate Type
Bill Debate
Tags
EconomyNorthern IrelandBusiness & TradeWomen & Equalities
Other Contributors: 60
At a Glance
Greg Hands raised concerns about trade bill - after clause 2 - northern ireland: non-discrimination in goods and services in the House of Commons. Other MPs contributed to the debate.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Lead Contributor
Opened the debate
The Government motion to disagree with Lords amendment 1, which seeks to introduce a new clause on non-discrimination in goods and services for individuals or organisations based on their political beliefs. The Minister argues that the proposed amendment would go beyond what is necessary by requiring all trade agreements to include a clause prohibiting discrimination against those who hold certain views. He suggests this could lead to unnecessary complications and delays in negotiations.
Northampton North
Intervened to suggest that the power of MEPs to give consent to trade Bills could be mirrored in Parliament, rather than Executive control. He questioned whether MPs should not have a say over such matters.
Anthony Mangnall
Con
Fylde
Noted the International Trade Committee's complaints about insufficient time for debating reports and suggested offering extra parliamentary time to discuss trade agreements thoroughly. He implied that this would allow Parliament to debate these issues without losing control of trade deals.
Edward Leigh
Con
Gainsborough
Asked whether there is a way to acknowledge genocide in a country when negotiating trade deals, without getting bogged down in international courts. He expressed frustration at the current inability to raise such issues effectively.
Nusrat Ghani
Con
Sussex Weald
Presented a compromise amendment that aims to address concerns raised by the Government while maintaining the separation of powers. She questioned the Minister's objection to this proposed amendment.
Chingford and Woodford Green
Reiterated that a view must be taken on the compromise amendment, which was tabled by him last Wednesday. He questioned whether the Minister has any objections to it.
Sammy Wilson
DUP
East Antrim
Called for putting in UK law that trade deals with countries engaging in genocide or human rights abuses would not be tolerated. He emphasised the need to stand as a global leader on these issues.
Steve Brine
Con
Fareham
Asked whether the Government would revoke an existing trade agreement if it was discovered that genocide was occurring in a country like China, despite not currently having such a deal.
Emily Thornberry
Lab
Islington South and Finsbury
Asked for clarification on the Minister's position regarding the potential revocation of trade agreements with countries guilty of genocide or human rights abuses.
Mr Mangnall interjected to argue that the International Trade Committee is able to scrutinise each trade agreement, followed by parliamentary debates and CRaG (Controlling Regulatory Reform) provisions. He contended that these mechanisms ensure sufficient scrutiny of trade deals.
Mr Djanogly interjected to argue that the current system allows for scrutiny at the Executive’s discretion, which can lead to unfair time constraints and insufficient opportunity for debate.
Chingford and Woodford Green
Supports Lords amendment 3, which would allow UK courts to make advisory preliminary genocide judgments when considering trade deals with accused states. He highlights the failure of international mechanisms like UN and ICC in addressing such issues. Argues that while courts retain power under this amendment, Parliament retains sovereignty by requiring primary legislation for reversal. Criticises the Government's inconsistent stance on alleged genocide.
Questions Duncan Smith about judicial activism and the likelihood of the House disagreeing with court determinations, expressing concerns over such a form of decision-making.
Stewart Hosie
SNP
Dundee East
Proposes Lords amendment 1 to ensure parliamentary approval and consultation with the devolved nations. This is essential for full scrutiny of trade agreements, from mandate scope through implementation. The absence of such provisions in the Bill amounts to inadequate democratic oversight.
Liam Fox
Con
Wyre Forest
Mr. Liam Fox opposed the specific Lords amendments, arguing they would give more power to judges rather than elected parliamentarians, set a problematic precedent for judicial involvement in political decisions, and would not make any practical difference regarding China's behaviour or trade.
Steve Brine
Con
Hampshire Fareham
[INTERVENTION] Mr. Brine interjected to ask Liam Fox if there is no objection to the compromise offer separating powers of courts, Executive, and parliamentarians.
Nusrat Ghani
Con
Sussex Weald
[INTERVENTION] Ms. Ghani questioned the Government's position on dealing with genocide within trade negotiations.
Chingford and Woodford Green
[INTERVENTION] Mr. Duncan Smith inquired how decisions regarding genocide can be made without judicial intervention, emphasising the necessity of a court decision before affecting trade.
Shabana Mahmood
Lab
Birmingham Ladywood
Supports Lords amendment 3 to prevent trade deals with genocidal states. Argues that international legal systems are ineffective and that UK courts should have the power to make preliminary determinations on genocide.
Thomas Tugendhat
Con
Tonbridge
Supports Lords amendment 3, emphasising the uniqueness of genocide and the importance of judicial determination. Argues that British judges are trusted worldwide to handle such cases.
South Ribble
Fletcher supports the Government's trade initiatives but opposes involving unelected judges in trade decisions. She argues for practical support and emotional encouragement for small businesses to export, including clear guidelines, affordable start-up units, and a national award scheme.
Alex Sobel
Lab Co-op
Leeds Central and Headingley
Proposes Lords amendments to ensure Parliament's say over future trade agreements, protect food standards, and include human rights clauses. Cites cross-party support and numerous organisations backing these measures.
Tobias Ellwood
Con
unknown constituency
Supports Lords amendments due to increasing international pressure on China, advocating for moral high ground in trade negotiations concerning human rights abuses.
Sammy Wilson
DUP
East Antrim
Endorses Lords amendment 8 to safeguard Northern Ireland's interests in future trade agreements and supports Lords amendment 3 for its focus on acts of genocide. Argues against concerns about judicial overreach.
Anthony Mangnall
Con
East Yorkshire
Mr. Anthony Mangnall argues that Lords amendments 1 and 3 would undermine parliamentary scrutiny of trade deals by revoking agreements based on preliminary determinations from the High Court, which he sees as impractical. He supports existing mechanisms for scrutiny and highlights his intent to eradicate genocide globally through international engagement rather than domestic legal measures.
Lyn Brown
Lab
West Ham
Ms Lyn Brown advocates for the Lords amendments, particularly regarding human rights abuses against Uyghur Muslims in China. She recounts the case of Gulbahar Hajimulam and emphasises the need to align trade policy with commitments to protect human rights and prevent genocide.
Mark Menzies
Con
Argyll and Bute
Argues that if Parliament determines genocide is occurring, but courts decide otherwise, it could tie the hands of Government. Believes reliance on judges undermines moral courage in addressing human rights abuses. Emphasises the importance of scrutiny by parliamentary committees and supports the Bill for its role in protecting prosperity and aiding vulnerable countries.
Layla Moran
Lib Dem
Oxford West and Abingdon
Supports Lords amendments to put human rights at the centre of trade policy, emphasising the importance of due diligence and reporting. Advocates for the genocide amendment to provide a practical mechanism for fulfilling international legal obligations on genocide. Criticises the Government's approach as undermining effective scrutiny and human rights.
Neil Hudson
Con
Epping Forest
Welcomes the Trade Bill for its potential to promote UK trade post-Brexit. Supports parliamentary scrutiny of trade deals and upholding high animal welfare standards but wishes these were explicitly reinforced in the Bill.
Mick Whitley
Lab
Wirral West
Calls for robust parliamentary scrutiny of trade deals to safeguard public health, maintain food standards and protect the environment. Urges support for Lords amendments that would guarantee Parliament's right to debate and approve trade deals.
Nusrat Ghani
Con
Sussex Weald
Supports Lords amendment 3 because it aligns with the UK's obligations under the genocide convention. Argues that international courts are ineffective due to geopolitical constraints, and suggests that outsourcing decisions on genocide to foreign states is not taking back control.
Supports Lords amendments 1, 3, 4, and 6. Emphasises the need for parliamentary scrutiny in trade negotiations and highlights the importance of strengthening human rights protections through international trade policy.
Opposes Lords amendment 3, arguing that it would limit free trade by expanding the role of courts in deciding human rights issues. Suggests that such decisions should be made by Parliament rather than judges.
Huntingdon
Mr. Jonathan Djanogly argues that the Bill needs to address scrutiny of future trade deals, including with roll-over countries and new partners like the US, India, and China. He supports Lords amendment 1 by Lord Purvis, which provides Parliament a vote on deals before and after negotiations and requires Government reporting on changes to standards. Despite concerns over loss of prerogative power, Mr. Djanogly asserts that proper scrutiny will establish the UK as a modern trading nation.
Paul Girvan
DUP
Lagan Valley
Mr. Paul Girvan raises concerns over Northern Ireland’s access to future trade deals and the additional costs due to tariffs and paperwork requirements. He supports Lords amendment 3 on dealing with issues such as genocide, ensuring pre-emptory norms are set within the Bill for any future trade deals.
Damian Collins
Con
Bromley and Chislehurst
Mr. Damian Collins speaks to Lords amendment 7, tabled by Baroness Kidron, which seeks to protect children’s data online. He argues for formal roles in statute for advisory bodies like the Information Commissioner’s Office and the Trade and Agriculture Commission to advise Parliament on the impact of future trade deals on digital rights.
Taiwo Owatemi
Lab
Coventry North West
Supports Lords amendments 1, 2, 3, and 4 to strengthen parliamentary scrutiny of trade agreements. Highlights the importance of human rights protections, NHS data security, and environmental standards in trade deals. Emphasises that these measures are crucial for maintaining Britain's international reputation and safeguarding public services.
Edward Leigh
Con
Gainsborough
Initially attracted to the amendments but now opposes them due to concerns about judicial overreach. Argues that trade policy decisions should be made by elected officials rather than courts, highlighting potential delays and complications from litigation. Suggests a robust parliamentary scrutiny system instead of court involvement.
Supports Lords amendments 1, 2, and 4 to ensure proper parliamentary scrutiny of trade deals, maintain high standards for food and animal welfare, and protect the NHS from privatisation. Emphasises the need for balance between urgency and maintaining integrity in national services.
Gary Sambrook
Con
Wealden
Stressed that the UK has made significant progress in securing trade deals post-Brexit. Criticised opponents for spreading fear and misinformation about privatisation of NHS, highlighting the importance of green trade, sustainable jobs, fair trade, and digital economy.
Blackpool North and FYI
Argued that the amendments are crucial for parliamentary scrutiny of free trade agreements. Emphasised concerns over environmental standards, animal welfare, and protection of NHS from privatisation. Highlighted reports warning about weakening protections around food imports.
Jeremy Wright
Con
Kenilworth and Southam
Expressed concerns over practicalities of amendment 3 on genocide, suggesting unclear respondent and authority for legal action. Questioned drafting of amendment 7 on online child protection due to potential conflicts with current parliamentary judgments.
Claire Hanna
SDLP
Belfast South and Mid Down
Highlights challenges due to Brexit and environmental governance gaps. Emphasises the need for legal protections in trade deals, arguing that warm words are insufficient without legislative safeguards. Raises concerns about parliamentary oversight and democratic legitimacy.
Andrew Bowie
Con
West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine
Supports action against human rights abuses but opposes giving the High Court power over trade deals. Argues that parliamentary democracy allows for proper scrutiny and accountability without judicial intervention.
Kerry McCarthy
Lab
Bristol East
Calls for stronger protections against bargaining away environmental and food standards in pursuit of trade deals. Emphasises the importance of parliamentary scrutiny, impact assessments, and a robust Trade and Agriculture Commission to hold the Government accountable.
Concerned about introducing a judicial element in free trade agreements, questioning whether it is desirable that a judge considers an international agreement already approved by Parliament. Regretfully does not feel he can back the amendment as it stands.
Stephen Kinnock
Lab
Aberafan Maesteg
Supports amendments tabled in names of noble Lords Alton and Collins, arguing that Britain should lead by example on global issues. Criticises the Foreign Secretary's arguments against the amendment as misleading and disingenuous.
Believes in robustness of current system of scrutiny, opposes judicial intervention in legitimate trade and foreign policy. Supports the Bill as it provides platform for growth, enabling Britain to become global hub for future sectors.
Mary Foy
Lab
City of Durham
Mary Foy expresses her constituents' distrust in government assurances regarding NHS protection, food standards, and human rights. She calls for legal guarantees rather than mere promises, emphasising that the public wants more scrutiny of trade deals and less marketisation of healthcare services.
Imran Ahmad Khan supports the anti-genocide amendment for its role in upholding international human rights obligations. He highlights the UK's historical stance on defending human rights and argues that unilateral action is sometimes necessary to prevent complicity with genocidal regimes.
Liz Twist
Lab
Blaydon and Consett
Liz Twist supports data protection, food standards, scrutiny of trade deals, and human rights provisions. She emphasises the importance of legislating to ensure NHS protection against marketisation and outsourcing, maintaining high animal welfare and environmental standards in imported goods, and robust parliamentary oversight.
Marco Longhi opposes the Lords amendments, emphasising economic benefits of trade agreements. He argues that judicial intervention would undermine parliamentary sovereignty and expresses confidence in the government's ability to secure advantageous trade deals.
Kim Johnson
Lab
Liverpool Riverside
Supports the amendments on human rights and argues that they would oblige Ministers to assess the human rights records of overseas states before trade negotiations, highlighting the UK's arms deals with Saudi Arabia as a major concern.
Highlights concerns about placing courts in a difficult position when determining acts of genocide and argues that amendment 1 would place limits on negotiators' flexibility, potentially undermining decisive trade policy. Suggests that the Bill's values-driven approach includes defending human rights.
Bury South
Intervenes to support Lords amendment 3, arguing it is a starting point to address real human rights concerns in Xinjiang despite its imperfections.
Zarah Sultana
Your Party
Coventry South
Critiques the Government for their actions that undermine NHS protection, highlighting private healthcare company contracts and past intentions of privatising the NHS. Urges Members to vote for Lords amendments 4 and 6.
Greg Hands
Con
Chelsea and Fulham
Responded to a wide-ranging debate on human rights, CRaG, Ponsonby rule, parliamentary scrutiny, and trade agreements with China. Emphasised that the Government recognises expertise in the House but opposes the amendments due to legal and practical issues.
Emily Thornberry
Lab
Islington South and Finsbury
Requested an intervention during Greg Hands' speech, indicating a desire for further clarification on specific points raised by the Minister.
Patrick Grady
SNP
Glasgow North
Interjected 'Hear, hear' in support of a point made earlier in the debate.
Chingford and Woodford Green
Requested an intervention during Greg Hands' speech, likely to raise additional points on human rights issues.
Nusrat Ghani
Con
Sussex Weald
Requested an intervention during Greg Hands' speech, possibly to address concerns about parliamentary scrutiny and trade agreements.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About House of Commons Debates
House of Commons debates take place in the main chamber of the House of Commons. These debates cover a wide range of topics including government policy, legislation, and current affairs. MPs from all parties can participate, question ministers, and hold the government accountable for its decisions.