← Back to House of Commons Debates
Trade Bill - After Clause 2 - Trade agreements and genocide
22 March 2021
Lead MP
Greg Hands
Debate Type
Bill Debate
Tags
EconomyBrexitBusiness & TradeParliamentary Procedure
Other Contributors: 21
At a Glance
Greg Hands raised concerns about trade bill - after clause 2 - trade agreements and genocide in the House of Commons. A government minister responded. Other MPs also contributed.
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 supports the amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, which ensures that the Government must put their position on record in writing when credible reports of genocide are raised concerning a country with which we propose a free trade agreement. This allows the Select Committee to draft a motion for debate if not satisfied with the response, providing significant control over the process without changing settled Government policy. The amendment does not make determinations on whether genocide has occurred but guarantees scrutiny and debate where credible reports exist.
Rosie Winterton
Lab
Sheffield Central
Noted that financial privilege is engaged by Lords amendment 3E. No position was taken on the bill or amendments.
Greg Hands
Con
Hammersmith
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.
Nusrat Ghani
Con
Sussex Weald
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.
Julian Lewis
Con
New Forest East
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.
Emily Thornberry
Lab
Islington South and Finsbury
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.
Chingford and Woodford Green
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.
Tim Loughton
Con
Wealden
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.
Drew Hendry
Lab
Inverness N & Ross
Noted but does not provide arguments or stance.
Rosie Winterton
Lab
Stockport
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.
Liam Fox
Con
North Somerset
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.
Nusrat Ghani
Con
Sussex Weald
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.
Shabana Mahmood
Lab
Birmingham Ladywood
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.
Sarah Olney
Lib Dem
Richmond Park
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.
Bob Neill
Con
Bromley and Chislehurst
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.
Emily Thornberry
Lab
Islington South and Finsbury
Intervenes, highlighting the concern that Select Committees may not have sufficient expertise to determine genocide and suggests that former judges would be better suited.
Ian Paisley Jnr
DUP
North Antrim
Intervenes, notes the contradiction of his amendment with the Government's position but does not provide detailed arguments against the current amendment.
Marie Rimmer
Lab
St Helens South and Whiston
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.
Geraint Davies
Lab
Swansea West
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.
Paul Howell
Con
Sleaford and North Hykeham
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.
Greg Hands
Con
Hove
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.
Government Response
The Minister argued for the Government’s amendment supporting parliamentary scrutiny when credible reports of genocide arise in free trade agreement contexts. He stated that this ensures debate without making judicial determinations, aligning with Government policy and maintaining legislative flexibility.
▸
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.