← Back to House of Commons Debates
Trade Bill - Amendments to Clause 2 on parliamentary approval of international trade agreements and treaties
09 February 2021
Lead MP
Greg Hands
Debate Type
Bill Debate
Tags
EconomyBrexitBusiness & TradeParliamentary Procedure
Other Contributors: 16
At a Glance
Greg Hands raised concerns about trade bill - amendments to clause 2 on parliamentary approval of international trade agreements and treaties 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
Mr. Greg Hands moves the Government motion to disagree with Lords amendment 1B, arguing that it is in order as per Standing Order No. 83G, which prevents divisions on certain amendments moved by Ministers.
Anthony Mangnall
Con
Fylde
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.
Edward Leigh
Con
Gainsborough
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.
Chingford and Woodford Green
Asserts that Select Committees will feel free to look into any matter regardless of Government direction, questioning the limitations placed by the proposed amendments.
Nusrat Ghani
Con
Sussex Weald
Argues against the notion that genocide investigations could be seen as propaganda and emphasises the importance of judicial determination on such serious matters.
Emily Thornberry
Lab
Islington South and Finsbury
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.
Chingford and Woodford Green
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.
Tim Loughton
Con
East Worthing and Shoreham
[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.
Drew Hendry
SNP
Inverness N Strathspey
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.
Bob Neill
Con
Bermondsey and Old Southwark
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.
Nigel Evans
Con
Carmarthen East and Dinefwr
Noted that they would leave it there, signifying an intervention without further elaboration on the amendment or position.
Jeremy Wright
Con
Kenilworth and Southam
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.
Chris Bryant
Lab
Rhondda and Ogmore
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.
Shadow Response
Emily Thornberry
Shadow Response
Argues strongly against the Government's amendments, emphasising their undermining of Parliament’s authority to scrutinise trade deals and protect standards. Advocates for Lord Lansley's amendment as a safeguard.
▸
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.