Ms Nusrat Ghani
MP for Sussex Weald · Conservative · United Kingdom
“Before we come to the urgent question, I must say how disappointing it is that the Government were not forthcoming with a proactive ministerial statement on this matter. The disruption to aviation and the impact on many constituents has been considerable.”
“The point of order and its content are not a matter for the Chair. I have not been notified of any Minister coming forward at this point, but I have only just come into the Chair. If the hon.”
“(3) Regulations under section 14Z45B must provide that, where an out-of-hospital service is to be provided to a patient, the integrated care board must— (a) offer the patient a choice of at least two providers capable of providing the service, which may include NHS bodies and independent sector providers approved to provide that service u…”
“(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the relevant requirements are— (a) that the special educational provision set out in section F of an EHC plan meets the needs identified by an EHC needs assessment; (b) that ICBs can be required to provide such special educational provision; (c) that ICBs must provide such special educational provis…”
“(3) The Charter must— (a) set out the fundamental principles and responsibilities for assessing whether a data sharing partnership is in the interest of the public and the NHS; (b) include the primary goal of protecting people’s privacy and their data from exploitation, while promoting trust in data systems and the handling of health data…”
“(2) Arrangements under subsection (1) must, so far as reasonably practicable, provide for— (a) general practitioners, dentists, pharmacists and other relevant primary care professionals to work together as part of integrated local primary care teams; (b) the sharing of relevant patient information between those professionals through secur…”
The complete record
Every one of 4,837 lines we hold for Ms Nusrat Ghani, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 65 of 97.
“Let me briefly present the evidence to support my motion: the five acts of genocide. Act 1 is: “Killing members of the group”. As Dr Smith Finley notes, in the massacre of 2014, up to 3,000 Uyghurs “were allegedly killed by security forces”, according to exiles. Separately, as Essex Court Chambers noted in its landmark 100-page legal case, there were reports that an unknown number of detainees died in the camps due to “poor living conditions and a lack of medical treatment.” Following the publishing of that opinion, the CCP sanctioned the chambers. Act 2 is: “Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group”. Fifty legal experts in international law have determined that every marker of genocide is met.”
“Therefore, while we must never misuse the term “genocide”, we must not fail to use it when it is warranted. I will shortly return to the horrific examples to support my motion, but let me first remind the House why we are stuck in the trenches and why I am asking us today to help dig us out and free the Uyghur people. The Government state that genocide can be determined only a competent court. Every route to a court is blocked by China. That means that, despite the Foreign Secretary stating that “the human rights violations being perpetrated in Xinjiang against the Uyghur Muslims is…far-reaching. It paints a…harrowing picture” —[ Official Report , 12 January 2021; Vol. 687, c. 160.] our Government are handcuffed, paralysed by the UN. We need to take back control. Our route to declaring genocide cannot be controlled by China.”
“For many, the word will be forever associated with the horrors of Nazi concentration camps. I agree with colleagues that we should never diminish the unique meaning and power of the term by applying it incorrectly, but there is a misunderstanding that genocide is just one act—mass killing. That is false. Article 2 of the United Nations genocide convention says that genocide is “any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”. There are three points that I want colleagues to note. First, genocide is measured against intent. Secondly, intent to commit any one of the five acts of genocide is sufficient. Thirdly, and fundamentally, all five acts of genocide are evidenced as taking place in Xinjiang.”
“When the CCP tries to control UK groups and individuals speaking freely about their research and legal opinions, it is our responsibility and duty to speak truth to power in this place, where we are afforded protection that others may not have. The sanctions are not only an attack on us as individuals but an attempt to stifle the free and open debate that is at heart of our hard-won parliamentary democracy. If the CCP is still in doubt about what our leadership thinks of the sanctions, let me quote our very own Prime Minister, who said: “Freedom to speak out in opposition to abuse is fundamental and I stand firmly with them.”. Today, I am asking the House to consider whether the grounds for genocide are met. I know that colleagues are reluctant to use the word “genocide”.”
“Let us just cut to the chase and blacklist firms who are linked to Xinjiang unless they are, uniquely, able to offer adequate proof that they are slave labour-free. The British customer does not want to be duped into putting money in the pocket of firms profiting from slave labour. I hope the Minister can wholeheartedly support the rest of the recommendations in the Select Committee report. I also want to put on record my thanks and offer solidarity to Dr Jo Smith Finley, a senior academic who was also sanctioned for sharing what she witnessed in Xinjiang, along with a legal firm and research group.”
“My hon. Friend could not have put it more perfectly. I believe that sanctioning five MPs for raising human rights abuses was sanctioning this House and asking it to stop raising human rights abuses in Xinjiang. The whole House needs to act as one. The fact that we are here today, having this debate, shows that the sanctions simply have not worked. I can only assume that my sanctions followed my campaigning on the genocide amendment to the Trade Bill, and my Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee report, which exposed that Xinjiang is a Uyghur slave state, and recommends that we blacklist UK firms putting slave-made products on our shelves. As we all know, basic checks and transparency standards cannot be guaranteed in Xinjiang, so businesses find it difficult to guarantee that they are slave labour-free.”
“Resolved, That this House believes that Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region are suffering crimes against humanity and genocide; and calls on the Government to act to fulfil its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide and all relevant instruments of international law to bring it to an end.”
“I thank hon. and right hon. Members across the House for speaking with one voice and the appropriate tone in considering the crime of all crimes, genocide. There is absolute recognition that all five markers of genocide have been met. The House, I hope, will speak with one voice in a few moments and unanimously support my motion. Unfortunately, that puts the Government in a very difficult position because at some point they will have to undertake their UN obligations. China sanctioned us for opposing its crimes against the Uyghur. Parliament must now prove that it will not be cowed and back my motion unanimously. We will continue to stand up for the Uyghur people. Question put and agreed to.”
“The Minister spoke about the work the Government are doing with businesses to make sure that modern slavery is not in supply chains, but that is now worthless, because every business doing the right thing that was identified in our report is now being threatened by the Chinese Communist party. Finally, alongside many colleagues, I led on the genocide amendment to the Trade Bill. Although it is good that the Government’s compromise tackled genocide, it is shameful that it excluded the Uyghur. I do not expect a change in the law, but I do expect the Minister to say that the Uyghur people can now come forward in any process in this place that is established to see whether genocide is taking place.”
“I want to put on the record my thanks to Mr Speaker for his robust support. He fully understands that sanctioning MPs was not only about intimidating us, but about threatening the integrity of this House. It is absurd for MPs to be sanctioned for producing a Select Committee report that talks about slave labour in Xinjiang. My question to the Minister is this: if we know that the United Nations is broken when it comes to determining genocide, what are we to do now that the Chinese communist party has decided to sanction those Members who dared to speak about it?”
“We can all thank God for the huge good done by the Duke’s choosing to devote himself to Queen, country and Commonwealth—the huge good done over seven decades by the power of the combined existence of the Duke and the Queen. The Duke will be fondly remembered and much missed. On behalf of Wealden, I humbly send our heartfelt sympathies to Her Majesty. God save the Queen.”
“He wrote: “Lilibet is the only ‘thing’ in the world which is absolutely real to me and my ambition is to weld the two of us into a new combined existence that will not only be able to withstand the shocks directed at us but will have a positive existence for the good”. The Prince was thinking about public service on his honeymoon. The letter continues: “Cherish Lilibet? I wonder if that word is enough to express what is in me. Does one cherish one’s sense of humour or one’s musical ear or one’s eyes? I am not sure, but I know that I thank God for them and so, very humbly, I thank God for Lilibet and us.” What a love letter!”
“I took it as a compliment. As Members can see, the Duke was one of those rare people who can span generations and people of all backgrounds. He touched us with his infectious enthusiasm: all the kids in Hindleap, these London kids, were just beaming from their momentary introduction to the Prince. If our small interactions with the Duke had such a lasting effect, one cannot imagine the impact of the loss on Her Majesty, having had 73 years of companionship from a loving husband. It was by all accounts a very modern love affair. The Prince was a modern man and recognised his role in the life of his leading wife. I want to reflect on a letter he wrote on his honeymoon in 1947 to his mother-in-law the Queen.”
“It is a great honour to contribute to this Humble Address on behalf of my constituents in Wealden in East Sussex, as the House celebrates and records tributes to His Royal Highness The Prince Philip. I express our heartfelt condolences to Her Majesty the Queen and the royal family at this time of personal loss. The Duke will be greatly missed by so many locals in Wealden, as he had long links to the area on so many levels. One example dates back to the 1960s. The Duke was a patron of London Youth and was instrumental in setting up an outdoor youth project called Hindleap where, nestled in a forest, London kids got to explore new skills. I recall meeting the Duke at Hindleap—he was utterly charming. He was obviously very frank with his banter: on shaking my hand, he declared that MPs were getting younger and younger these days.”
“In Sussex, by the end of this week we will have delivered 1 million covid jabs. Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the local vaccine heroes and, in particular, to Adam Doyle and his leadership in Hailsham, to Charlotte Luck in Uckfield, and to Dr Susie Padgham in Crowborough? Does the Prime Minister agree that the UK’s success is built on the confidence that people have in the fantastic vaccine technology, and that should, and when, our constituents be contacted to have a vaccination, they should definitely take up the first available appointment?”
“I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement word for word and, of course, the sanctions that so many of us have argued for for so long. I will cut to the chase: my right hon. Friend talks about supply chains. He knows that my Select Committee—the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee—produced a report on this. Let us just blacklist companies that are based in Xinjiang. We cannot go in and check what is happening, and we know that it is basically a prison camp. Secondly, because I agree word for word with my right hon. Friend’s statement, I assume that he is going to be in the Lobby with me tonight backing the genocide amendment, because without it, the Neill amendment excludes the Uyghurs. Let us not have a two-tier genocide policy. Let us make sure that the Uyghurs have their case heard.”
“Another states: “Such frivolous and preposterous farces aimed to discredit and smear China will only end up undercutting their own reputation as a laughing stock.” It goes on about facing “the condemnation of conscience and the reckoning of justice.” Madam Deputy Speaker, I need you to provide me with some guidance on whether this goes against the grain of allowing MPs to conduct their work without fear. Is accusing a Select Committee report of being “full of lies” a contempt of Parliament? Colleagues have noted that the language to which I have been subjected publicly could be considered threatening, but I seek your guidance. I hope you agree that we should not allow foreign interference to challenge the House, a Select Committee or any MP for doing what they were elected to do.”
“On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have given notice of my point of order. This week, the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee on which I sit published a report on supply chains linked back to Xinjiang. I raise this point of order to gain your advice and judgment on the situation I now find myself in. Officials from the Chinese embassy in London are accusing Members of Parliament, the Committee and, therefore, the House of lies. I have been bombarded by tweets. One claims that: “Some politicians chose to believe the lies made up by a few… They chose to dance with the few anti-China elements in their clumsy dramas”.”
“I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way and for his comments earlier. However, I am slightly anxious that he may be misrepresenting the situation from the Dispatch Box.”
“Unintentionally, yes; forgive me. The term “quasi-judicial” has a meaning in law. The Alton amendment proposes that Members of the House of Lords who were previously judges are able to make and review any decision that the House of Commons Select Committee makes. It is not a court; it is just a Select Committee in the House of Lords. What has the Minister got to fear?”
“It is as if the Government put together a call for evidence on violence against women and girls and said, “We’re not going to allow women and girls to give evidence.” Let me explain. The forced sterilisation of Uyghur women is at a rate that makes “The Handmaid’s Tale” seem like a fairy tale. There is a birth rate drop of 84%—a clear marker of genocide. We are saying to Uyghur women, “You don’t matter. Anyone else but you can present to the Select Committee.””
“Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith)—and my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton)—who is moving my amendment to agree with the Alton amendment, formally known as the genocide amendment. I regret that I cannot support the Government’s amendment, because it responds to the Uyghur crisis by producing an amendment that excludes them. The Government amendment applies only to countries that are formally negotiating a free trade agreement. The genocide amendment excludes the Uyghurs. Considering everything that has been said today, I really think that is a shameful way to deal with our international and national responsibility. It fundamentally sends a message that we have a two-tier system. I was trying to explain this to my daughter this morning.”
“In this place we should recognise a win, so I am grateful that the Government have accepted the principle that they cannot be unaccountable when negotiating trade deals with genocidal states. That is the proposition in the Government’s Neill amendment, which we have banked. However, the proposed Government amendment excludes the Uyghurs, which makes no sense considering the very forceful statement made by the Foreign Secretary just a few hours ago. I welcomed the Foreign Secretary’s statement, especially the sanctions. We have also banked that, but the message we are sending to tyrannical states by denying the genocide amendment is that we have a two-tier genocide system, from which the Uyghurs are excluded. In case it has to be said, I support my right hon.”
“I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. This is why it is so important that we back the genocide amendment and give teeth to all the statements made in the House.”
“I hope that their stories are heard too. I can speak about the progress of women and the fear and prejudice that we face, but I want to talk about the plight of Uyghur women, who are living the nightmare of “The Handmaid’s Tale”, and in particular the brave woman Rahima Mahmut, who is a Uyghur survivor. We should carry her on our shoulders as she fights for the plight of women—women who are forced into being sterilised or having abortions and who have their children removed, all because they are Uyghur and based in Xinjiang. I hope that we can do much more within our power to support them. It is a pleasure to speak in the debate, but it would be far more powerful if we had more than just three minutes to talk about the phenomenal progress that women have made and the work that we have to do.”
“It was the hospice where the late Princess of Wales hugged or shook hands with a Mildmay patient, helping to break the taboo and stigma around HIV and AIDS. I wonder whether, if Helen Taylor-Thompson had been a man, all us would know her name, but she was a woman, and I want to put her name on record today. When we celebrate the phenomenal vaccination programme, I hope that we do not whitewash the roles of women. I want women like those in my constituency to be recognised, including Charlotte Luck, the practice manager of the Meads medical centre, for having done so much work in ensuring vaccines are rolled out efficiently, and Dr Susie Padgham, a GP based at Saxonbury House surgery in Crowborough, who at one point was provided with over 1,000 extra vaccines and was able to get patients vaccinated in a short period of time.”
“It is the actions of men that dictate our lives and our choices, and for the next few minutes I want—I choose—to celebrate some phenomenal women in my constituency, particularly Helen Taylor-Thompson. Helen Taylor-Thompson lived in the village of Nutley and, unfortunately, I had to attend her funeral last year. When Helen was around, she was wonderful in providing me with cups of tea and bits of cake. The reason why she is so important is that, at the age of 19, she signed the Official Secrets Act and began working for the Special Operations Executive, but she did not stop there. Later on, she raised over £3 million and set up the UK’s first hospice caring for people with AIDS-related illnesses.”
“I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) on securing this debate, and I agreed with every word she said. As for the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), I just hope that, when she is on her feet next year, she will be speaking for a much shorter period of time and there are not so many women killed at the hands of man. As for my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), with your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to send her a virtual hug for her brave speech. It is with a heavy heart that we are recognising International Women’s Day today, and the mood of the House has once again been dictated by the actions of men, not by the achievements of women. That is the reality of our day-to-day lives.”
“There seems to be no purpose in having the Magnitsky sanctions as a tool but popping them on a shelf. If the Minister or the Department feel vulnerable in applying them in a solo fashion, what work is being done with the Five Eyes countries to introduce co-ordinated Magnitsky sanctions against the Hong Kong and Chinese officials responsible for the national security laws? My hon. Friend the Minister mentioned our allies the Americans. Just this morning, the Biden Administration reconfirmed their belief that genocide is taking place against the Uyghur at the hands of the Chinese state. What work is being done with the Minister’s counterparts in America to prevent this genocide from carrying on?”
“I find it hard to believe that, if a country was investigated for genocide, that could in any way be seen as a propaganda event. It is not for us to determine how that decision is taken. The Government repeatedly say that that is for the courts, so we should allow the courts to come to a determination on the basis of evidence. We should never believe that people will not put a case forward to the courts because it might fail. That is just nonsense.”
“We will do everything we can to ensure that we are not trading with genocidal states. Let us remember that it is the Government’s position, not mine, that genocide is for the courts. The Foreign Secretary said last month, “Whether or not it amounts to genocide is a matter for the courts”. The Prime Minister, last month, said that “the attribution of genocide is a judicial matter”. —[ Official Report , 20 January 2021; Vol. 687, c. 959.] Why, then, is a meaningless amendment being backed that demotes this to the level of a Select Committee—and it has been rejected by a Select Committee—and deliberately excludes the Uyghurs and China? We are outsourcing genocide determination to the UN, which is handcuffed by China and Russia. Why not bring that back home? Why not take back control, in line with the Government’s own policy?”
“Today was intended to be a historic vote on a simple question: can we give effect to the Government’s own policy that genocide determination is a judicial matter, allowing us to assess whether our trading partners are committing that most heinous of crimes? Yet that most serious question—the destruction, rape, sterilisation, brainwashing and killing of an entire group of people from the face of the Earth —cannot be answered today. We have been denied a vote on the genocide amendment, which was improved to meet the Government’s objections—an amendment so powerful that it secured a majority of 171 in the other Chamber—and was on course to win the backing of the House today. I am appalled at the parliamentary games played over such a grave issue, but we will not let the principle go away.”
“Last week, the Board of Deputies of British Jews highlighted the plight of the Uyghurs and the chilling similarity to Nazi Germany: 2 million Uyghurs are in prison camps. The late Rabbi Sacks was once asked where God was when the holocaust took place. He responded that the real question was: where was man? Let the record show that, on this day, men and women in this House were ready to vote on the genocide amendment, to lead the world in standing up to tyrannical regimes that commit genocide, to honour our vow of “never again”, to ensure that we are never complicit in genocidal trade, and to put Britain on the right side of history. Today, we were denied that vote, and this House was denied its say.”
“Indeed. Some colleagues have said that we have bent over too much and that there is too much power with the Executive, but we have separated the power: the courts determine genocide, Parliament opines and the Executive are in charge. We are unsure what the objections are now. I tabled a question to the Government to ask who determines genocide, and the response was: “The determination as to whether a situation constitutes genocide is factually and legally complex and should only be made by a competent court following a careful and detailed examination.” That means that any Select Committee paper would be rubbished. The values of our country do not include enriching ourselves on the back of slave labour or using our new-found post-Brexit freedom to trade with states that commit and profit from genocide. Britain is better than that.”
“(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the treatment of Uyghur women in Xinjiang detention camps.”
“Rahima is a brave woman, risking her safety to save her family and her people. The United Kingdom cannot stand by and do nothing about the extermination of the Uyghur—mass rapes, scalping and forced sterilisations. We can act and we must act.”
“These horrors have led the Board of Deputies of British Jews to compare the plight of the Uyghurs to the Holocaust. But as everybody in this House knows, there is no prospect of China being held to account through the International Criminal Court or the International Court of Justice. So I ask the Minister: how will the Government get the court judgment they need to act when all international routes are paralysed by China? We cannot be bystanders to the deliberate attempt to exterminate a group of people. Not again. Will the Minister make a promise today that no further deepening of ties of any kind will take place with China until a full judicial inquiry has investigated these crimes? Will he commit himself to a meeting with Rahima Mahmut, a Uyghur survivor, who is known by so many in this House?”
“I thank the Minister for his powerful statement. Yesterday, the BBC broadcast harrowing footage of Chinese state-orchestrated abuse against Uyghur women on an unprecedented scale. “They had an electric stick, I didn’t know what it was, and it was pushed inside my genital tract, torturing me with an electric shock.” That is the testimony of Tursunay Ziawudun. “They did whatever their evil minds could think of. They were barbarians. I felt I had died. I was dead.” Then there are the gang rapes of Uyghur women by the police in front of other camp detainees, as a form of re-education, seeking out those who look away to punish them even further. These horrifying stories add to the huge and growing body of evidence detailing atrocities perpetrated by the Chinese authorities in Xinjiang—atrocities that may even be genocidal.”
“I come with good news from Wealden: the vaccination programme is working at a fantastic pace in my care homes and across the constituency. I come also with thanks to my right hon. Friend and to his leadership from lots of people across Wealden. So I thank him very much, but a Minister’s job is never done. Now I am being flooded by messages from parents, grandparents and teachers who want no further delays to school openings, so any assurances would be welcome. Furthermore, as we know that the lockdown has had an impact on our children’s mental health, health and educational attainment, is research being undertaken by the Department so that we can be ready to offer full wraparound care for our young people when lockdown is over?”
“I welcome the Minister’s statement. In a previous job, I was in Myanmar for the BBC. It is so depressing to watch this new tragedy unfold. The UN Security Council is holding an emergency meeting today, which is of course incredibly welcome. Does the Minister share my concern that China’s stranglehold on UN institutions and its alleged closeness to the Myanmar military mean that it might stifle the meeting today and going forward? Can he offer any succour for people like me who have those concerns?”
“I believe her words should be shared with all MPs: “I know you understand that, as a community, we are always extremely hesitant to consider comparisons with the Holocaust…In my letter, I noted the similarities between what is ‘alleged to be happening in the People’s Republic of China today and what happened in Nazi Germany 75 years ago… Today we stand at another of these crucial junctures, and it is time to act to protect the Uyghurs.” I hope that colleagues will join the Board of Deputies and the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust in supporting the genocide amendment. Let us put our words, “Never again”, into action.”
“So much focus this year has been on the plight of the Uyghurs, especially last night as they honoured as their guest speaker Rahima Mahmut, who has truly been the light in the darkness for the Uyghurs. Most recently, the president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, Marie van der Zyl, wrote to the Prime Minister.”
“Wherever men or women are persecuted because of their race, religion, or political views, that place must—at that moment—become the centre of the universe.” Elie’s words keep me focused on ensuring that I do all I can, as an MP, both to share the horrors of the holocaust and to ensure that history does not repeat itself. The theme for Holocaust Memorial Day is “Be the light in the darkness”, encouraging everyone to reflect on the depths that humanity can sink to, but also reminding us that we can all resist that darkness to be the light before, during and after genocide. I do not think there has been a call to action so powerful from the Holocaust Memorial Trust or the Board of Deputies of British Jews.”
“It is an honour to contribute to such a powerful debate with heartfelt contributions from colleagues across the House. Today, as we reflect on Holocaust Memorial Day, I want to share the powerful words of the holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel: “I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented. Sometimes we must interfere. When human lives are endangered, when human dignity is in jeopardy, national borders and sensitivities become irrelevant.”
“I agree with the Minister that Russia is a destabilising force with little regard for human rights and international law. Of course, that affects us, especially as Russia continues to use its veto to stall the United Nations in investigating genocide. Does the Minister agree with the Government’s position that the determination of genocide falls to international courts, but when they are in paralysis, with countries such as Russia having a hold over them, the obligation to investigate and prevent a genocide falls to domestic courts?”
“I thank my right hon. Friend for presenting what the Foreign Office is doing on human rights. We have tabled a compromise amendment that takes into account all the concerns that the Government have expressed about the Lord Alton amendment, and that makes very clear the separation of powers—fundamentally, that Parliaments advise, and Ministers decide. What is his objection to the compromise amendment tabled by me and my colleagues?”
“My right hon. Friend will know that we have offered such a compromise, which very easily separated the role of powers, whether of the courts, the Executive or parliamentarians, but it has been rejected outright. If there is no apparent objection to that, really, what is the Government’s position on dealing with genocide within trade?”
“We can uphold our United Nations obligations and ensure that we do not trade with genocidal states, or we can do nothing, and to do nothing is a counsel of despair.”
“If we do not pass the amendment today, we will be outsourcing all future decisions on genocide to Russia and China. We now have an independent trade policy after leaving the EU, and Brexit was a vote of hope and optimism and for Britain to play its part in leading the world, so why would we want to use our new-found freedom to trade with states that commit and profit from genocide? Britain is surely better than that. Tomorrow, Joe Biden becomes the President of the United States, our closest ally. Today is Britain’s moment to blaze a trail and showcase global leadership on trade and international law. We can all talk about our noblest values, but we cannot do so while allowing the vilest of crimes to continue. We have an amendment. We can make a stand against genocide.”
“I do not accept that that is taking back control. I do not accept that our courts are not skilled enough to determine breaches of international law. I do not accept that the Bill as drafted gives Parliament sufficient say over whether states that we wish to strike trade deals with are committing genocide. I understand the concerns about Executive power, and the role of Parliament versus the courts, which is why I tabled an amendment with colleagues in lieu of Lords amendment 3 to address those concerns. Courts will judge, Parliament will opine and Ministers will decide. Yet that amendment was rejected. If the Government believe that this is still an unacceptable derogation of power, what is the alternative and what are the Government’s objections?”