Moved by Lord Alton of Liverpool
Leave out from “disagreed,” to end and insert “do disagree with the Commons in their Amendments 3C and 3D in lieu, and do propose Amendment 3E in lieu—
3E: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause—“Trade agreements and genocide(1) Subsection (2) applies if the responsible committee of the House of Commons publishes a report which—(a) states that there exist credible reports of genocide perpetrated by a counter-party to a relevant agreement, and(b) confirms that, in preparing the report, the committee has taken such evidence as it considers appropriate.(2) The matter is referred to the Parliamentary Judicial Committee (“PJC”) for a preliminary determination on genocide perpetrated by a counter-party to a relevant agreement.(3) Following a preliminary determination from the PJC under subsection (2) the Secretary of State must prepare a response to the responsible committee of the House of Commons.(4) Subsection (5) applies if, after receiving a response from the Secretary of State to the preliminary determination mentioned in subsection (2), the responsible committee of the House of Commons publishes a report which—(a) includes a statement to the effect that the committee is not satisfied by the Secretary of State’s response, and(b) sets out the wording of a motion to be moved in the House of Commons in accordance with subsection (5).(5) A Minister of the Crown must make arrangements for the motion mentioned in subsection (4)(b), within a reasonable period, to be debated and voted on by the House of Commons. (6) Subsection (7) applies if the responsible committee of the House of Lords publishes a report which—(a) states that there exist credible reports of genocide perpetrated by a counter-party to a relevant agreement, and(b) confirms that, in preparing the report, the committee has taken such evidence as it considers appropriate.(7) The matter is referred to the PJC for a preliminary determination on genocide perpetrated by a counter-party to a relevant agreement.(8) Following a preliminary determination from the PJC under subsection (7) the Secretary of State must prepare a response to the responsible committee of the House of Lords.(9) Subsection (10) applies if, after receiving a response from the Secretary of State to the preliminary determination mentioned in subsection (7), the responsible committee of the House of Lords publishes a statement to the effect that—(a) it is not satisfied by the Secretary of State’s response, and(b) it seeks a debate on the report.(10) A Minister of the Crown must make arrangements for a motion for the House of Lords to take note of the report and the Secretary of State’s response to be moved, within a reasonable period, in that House by a Minister of the Crown.(11) A Minister of the Crown may by regulations made by statutory instrument make provision for or in connection with the establishment and funding of, and appointment to, the PJC, and the process of referral and preliminary determination made pursuant to subsections (2) and (7).(12) Regulations under subsection (11) above may in particular—(a) specify the procedure by which members (who must have held high judicial office) may be appointed to the PJC, and on whose authorisation;(b) make provision about the procedure and rules of evidence necessary for consideration of a referral mentioned in subsections(2) and (7), allowing for hearings under oath, the collection of evidence, including exculpatory evidence, and the standard of proof to which the PJC should work.(13) In making such regulations the Minister of the Crown must have regard to—(a) the experience gained in the operation of this section;(b) the object and intended purpose behind the operation of this section including—(i) the upholding of all undertakings in and international obligations arising from the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide;(ii) provision of meaningful referral without unreasonable hindrance to the PJC or the committee making the referral pursuant to subsection (2) or (7).(14) Regulations under subsection (11) may contain supplemental, incidental, consequential and transitional provision.(15) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (11) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.(16) In this section—“counter-party to a relevant agreement” means a counter-party with which the United Kingdom has a bilateral trade agreement or is engaged in negotiations for a bilateral trade agreement;“genocide” has the same meaning as in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (see Article 2 of the convention) and refers to genocide occurring, or continuing, after this section comes into force;“Parliamentary Judicial Committee” or “PJC” means an ad hoc committee established in accordance with regulations under subsection (11), comprising five members of the House of Commons or House of Lords who have held high judicial office;“preliminary determination” means a public finding by the PJC of genocide perpetrated by a counter-party to a relevant agreement, after due consideration by the PJC of all available evidence; “the responsible committee of the House of Commons” means any select committee of the House of Commons charged with responsibility for this section;“the responsible committee of the House of Lords” means any select committee of the House of Lords charged with responsibility for this section.””
My Lords, in declaring my non-financial interests as listed in the register, and turning to Motion B1 and Amendment 3E in lieu, I give notice of my intention to seek the opinion of the House when the time comes. The arguments in favour of the all-party genocide amendment have been extensively aired in Committee, on Report, and in deciding to send the amendment back to the House of Commons, so I will not rehearse again all the arguments about the total inadequacy of our response to genocide, but simply set out why this proposition should be sent back to another place with the strongest possible message that this House will not remain indifferent or silent in the face of the very worst atrocity crimes, and nor will your Lordships be satisfied with a sleight of hand.
In addressing us, the Minister said three things that I will immediately address. First, he said that this would change our constitutional approach by the back door. It is not changing our constitutional approach, for reasons I will give, and certainly not by the back door: we are debating an amendment on the Marshalled List. Secondly, he said that it would blur the distinction and challenge the separation of powers. It would do neither of those things, for reasons I will come to. Thirdly, he said that it is a determination that can be made only by a court of law, and then said that the Government are opposed to providing the opportunity by empowering a court of law—the High Court in this country—to make such a determination. The Government are tying themselves in knots; I will explore some of those knots.
Our amendment would merely insert a committee of legal experts into the proposal sent here by the elected Chamber. It cannot be unfettered and unaffected by other considerations. I say to the Minister that I too am a free trader, who calls in his defence Richard Cobden, the greatest advocate of free trade, but who said that two of the greatest evils of his day—the transatlantic slave trade and the opium trade in China—were unconscionable evils that overrode the creed of free trade. It is not difficult to imagine what his response would be today if he were confronted with what is happening to the Uighur Muslims. The Foreign Secretary, Dominic Raab, yesterday described their suffering to the United Nations Human Rights Council:
“The situation in Xinjiang is beyond the pale. The reported abuses—which include torture, forced labour and forced sterilisation of women—are extreme and they are extensive. They are taking place on an industrial scale.”
On the very pertinent issue of trade, the Foreign Secretary said that
“no company profiting from forced labour in Xinjiang can do business in the UK” and that he will ensure
“that no UK businesses are involved in their supply chains.”
In line with this, the Government have repeatedly told the House that they are not seeking a free trade agreement with China. But this is not the whole story, and we must be wary of falling for the stage magic of rabbits and empty hats.
We need to focus on a reported meeting in Downing Street on
“Any responsible Government, and certainly this one, would have acted well before then.”—[Official Report, 2/2/21; col. 2082.]
However, in the same week, the Minister answered a PQ on trade with China saying that
“we are pursuing increased bilateral trade.”
This is to be seen in the context of a 100-page legal opinion by Alison Macdonald QC, a leading barrister, that there were strong legal grounds to conclude that crimes against humanity and genocide are being perpetrated by the Chinese state.
Yet last week the Prime Minister held a round table with companies trading with China, such as Swire Group and Tenacity, and is reported as saying that, despite occasional political differences, he wants a resumption of formal trade discussions with China, reactivating two forums, the Economic and Financial Dialogue and the China-UK Joint Economic and Trade Commission—JETCO—which had both been suspended in response to China’s repression of civil rights in Hong Kong. Meanwhile, the situation in Hong Kong continues to worsen, while atrocities in Xinjiang, as the Foreign Secretary said yesterday, are on “an industrial scale”. This, too, has to be seen in the context of the Biden Administration naming events in Xinjiang a genocide and criticising the European Union for pressing ahead with a massive investment deal with China. Only last night, the Canadian Parliament voted 266 to zero to recognise the Uighur genocide.
In 1941, in a live broadcast from London, Winston Churchill said that the systematic slaughter of six million people was
“a crime without a name”.
In 1948, Raphael Lemkin gave it a name and crafted the genocide convention, with duties that we are required to affirm. It is an international treaty. Lemkin expected the word to be matched by deeds, but it never has been. We fail to predict genocide. We fail to prevent genocide, to protect victims of genocide and to prosecute perpetrators of genocide. The genocide amendment is a modest attempt to address some of those failings. The very welcome election last week of the British QC, Karim Khan, as the new chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court may be another harbinger of change.
This brings us back to today. We are well within our constitutional rights to ask the House of Commons to think further about this. On Report, the House unequivocally passed this all-party amendment by a majority of 126. It failed in the Commons by a slender margin of 11. On its return to the Lords we passed it by an even bigger majority of 171, with 359 votes to 188. It secured those votes thanks to the strong bipartisan support of Back-Bench Members and Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen, notably the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, Lord Collins of Highbury and Lord Purvis of Tweed, and from the government Benches the noble Lords, Lord Blencathra, Lord Cormack, Lord Polak and many others. There were also the sponsors of the amendment: the noble Lords, Lord Forsyth and Lord Adonis, the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, and, at an earlier stage, my noble friend Lady Falkner of Margravine.
Unfortunately, in a procedure heavily criticised by Sir Iain Duncan Smith, the former leader of the Conservative Party, the opposition Front Bench and Members from all parties in the Commons, they were denied a separate vote on the genocide amendment. I say to the Minister that after 40 years of serving in both Houses, I am well aware of the precedents, but I am also well aware that business managers can use the Order Paper to their advantage and to frustrate Parliament when they wish to do so.
Instead, a government-inspired amendment was passed, simply enabling Select Committees of either House to consider whether a genocide is under way in a particular jurisdiction. It does not require an Act of Parliament to enable that. It is hardly what the Minister described as a middle way. This is a power which Select Committees already enjoy; it does nothing to break the current policy conundrum whereby the Government maintain that genocide is, as we have heard repeated in your Lordships’ House, a matter for “judges, not politicians”, while knowing that there is no prospect of any judge hearing the case, owing to the ability of certain states to frustrate the international judicial system.
As recently as this morning, the Minister’s department told the BBC that it will continue to argue that genocide determination is only for the courts, but now the Government say that they will allow a Select Committee to take a view. What is it supposed to take a view on? It is surely on whether the committee believes a genocide is taking place, but that will not be taken as a determination. A former Minister told me that the argument that this must be decided by the courts, knowing that there is not one empowered in the United Kingdom to resolve it, had become an unsustainable embarrassment, with Ministers expected implausibly to repeat the argument ad nauseum in the face of unfolding atrocities.
We now have a situation where the Government are asking Select Committees to do something that they believe is impossible, and which the Government have no intention of taking any notice of. This is just as in 2016, when the Commons passed a Motion saying that a genocide was under way against the Yazidi and other minorities in northern Iraq. The Government said it had no status to do that—and that was on the Floor of the House of Commons, not just in a Select Committee. It will require all the powers of a stage magician to untie the knots with which the Government’s contradictory arguments have become entangled.
The amendment has two further serious defects. First, it applies only to prospective free trade agreement counter-signatories, which excludes China, and therefore, as the Government well know, would do nothing to help Uighurs. Secondly, the government-Neill amendment applies only to genocides which occur
“in the territory of a prospective FTA counter-party”.
This is very broad framing, applying to state and non- state actors alike. Conceivably, the Select Committee could hold accountable an FTA counter-signatory state for the actions of a group or even a single individual within its territory, a very serious defect which our new amendment corrects.
The all-party amendment is a genuine attempt to meet the Government half way. With the wise help of the former Supreme Court judge, my noble and learned friend, Lord Hope of Craighead, we have tweaked the government amendment to enable the appropriate Select Committee to refer evidence, if it had found some, to an ad hoc judicial committee comprised of Members of our House who have served at the highest levels of the judiciary. Although it is emphatically not a court—which was the preferred option of your Lordships, as expressed in our earlier amendments, and remains my own preferred option—it would be empowered to determine whether the evidence is sufficient to support the claim that genocide had been, or was being, committed by a state counterparty to a bilateral trade agreement.
We have not sought to undo the constitutional reforms of 2009. This amendment emphatically does not reinsert a court in our House. Those participating will be former and not existing judges. It merely makes use of the tremendous legal expertise of this House to provide a credible analysis which no existing Select Committee could hope to emulate or achieve. Ultimately, the House of Commons and the Executive would still have the final say on what they want to do about such a finding, though, as my noble and learned friend has said, it would be authoritative.
We also believe that with the further modifications we have made, our amendment in lieu will gain additional support in the Commons. Following the last Commons debate, many Members from all parties have urged us to give them the chance to consider this question further. Unfortunately, it now appears that the Government have decided at short notice to resist this amendment, despite ample time to hold further discussions if they had genuinely wanted to find a way forward. Earlier today, Sir Iain Duncan Smith said:
“I had a week of discussions with various Ministers, who were amenable and even positive about this approach. At no point were any of these objections raised. This is a genuine, reasonable, decent compromise which meets the Government's desire to avoid the courts while allowing for a serious interrogation of the facts.”
Although the shifting sands have moved, this may not have been a breach of good faith by individual Ministers; it may come from higher up the food chain. Only the House of Commons can now put that right. This is now bound up with high politics, big vested interests and not the deterrence of genocide. Parliament must not allow itself to become part of an alibi for inaction, which is why we should do as parliamentary colleagues have urged us and send this back for further consideration. I beg to move.
My Lords, I make it plain at the outset that I shall give strong support to the noble Lord, Lord Alton. The small amendments that I have made are so that I can participate as I have in the other debates. I make no apology for this. As we said last time, we are urged to stay away, we say that we are treated equally. That is not true, so I have put down two amendments which I think slightly improve the noble Lord’s amendment, but I do not intend to press them if he does not want me to.
I begin with a tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Alton. He has received many and deserved them all. He and I first became associated when drawing attention to and deploring genocide at the time of Srebrenica, in the other place. We both spoke on it, deploring the lack of response from the international community. It was not only genocide but an international scandal. Today we are offered by the Government a few fig leaves, and the noble Lord has very properly demolished the Government’s argument. If the Government are indeed, as I believe, opposed to and revolted by genocide, then even at this late stage I implore my noble friend on the Front Bench, for whom I have high personal regard, to urge his ministerial colleagues to listen to the good sense of the amendment placed before us.
During the last debate, we were in effect offered a challenge. The Government were offering to do things within Parliament, still clinging to their oft-repeated assertion that only judges could ultimately decide. It is a challenge that we have accepted and, with the wonderful help of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, we have this amendment to place before your Lordships’ House this afternoon.
We should rejoice that in this House we have so many eminent legal brains. We are suggesting that we should enlist the services of some of those who have served in the Supreme Court and have held other kinds of high judicial office—we should remember that we have three former Lord Chief Justices in this House—if a committee of either House detects genocide and asks them to advise. We are keeping it within the parliamentary forum, which the Government assert they wish to do, and are using some of the highest legal brains in the world, which the Government have implied they want to do. This is an eminently sensible amendment.
I am one of those who believes very strongly that ping-pong should not go on for ever, but if we vote this afternoon, which I hope we will, and if we have a great majority, which I hope we will have, I do not believe that we will be in any way transgressing the bounds of parliamentary propriety. We are responding to a challenge from the Government and putting forward a new suggestion that keeps us within the parliamentary context and the parliamentary forum.
We must give our colleagues in the other place the chance to assess what we are now offering them. I hope that they will agree that it is a realistic, sensible and balanced offering. If they do, I hope that the Government will concede that Parliament has made a very important step forward in the battle against genocide.
Of course, there is another reason why we should do this. As was referred to by my noble friend Lord Alton, the vote in the other place was rather fudged last time. This time, I hope the other place will have one issue to decide on—a carefully thought-out amendment that realistically meets the Government’s challenge and that will enable Parliament to play a real part in upholding the morality integrity of our country. There are some things that we should never sink to in global Britain. Global Britain should be an example to the world in its rigid adherence to the rule of law and its total desire to eliminate genocide. Okay, a few trade deals might have to go, but is it not better to retain our moral integrity as a nation—one that has embarked on a new and hazardous chapter in its life? I beg your Lordships to support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Alton.
What is going on, as we speak, in Xinjiang and in Hong Kong, to which we have a continuing and recognised moral responsibility, disgraces a great nation—one built on a great civilisation. It is appalling that the CCP—the Chinese Communist Party—should extinguish in the most brutal fashion the human and constitutional rights of every free-born man and woman. I beg noble Lords to support this amendment and to send an emphatic message to the other place, and I beg our friends and colleagues in the other place to vote with courage, integrity and determination when this amendment comes before them.
My Lords, the following Members in the Chamber have indicated that they wish to speak and I will call them in this order: the noble Lords, Lord Blencathra, Lord Polak and Lord Shinkwin, the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Falkner of Margravine. After the final speaker, I will open it up to anyone in the Chamber to speak.
My Lords, I rise for yet another time to support my noble friend’s amendment on genocide.
As Peers, we know our place, and this noble House asks only that the other place think again about the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. Last time, the other place did not get a chance to think again because, in a brilliant and fiendishly clever move, our amendment was not considered. I pay tribute to the Government. It is the sort of clever, dirty, underhanded trick that I would love to have played if only I had thought of it when I was Chief Whip.
I will not spend time on the merits of the amendment and why it is necessary. The case has once again been put with frightening authority by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and my noble friend Lord Cormack. The justification for it is overwhelming and in direct contrast to the increasingly desperate government excuses not to accept it, all of which have been discredited.
The Government say that only a court can decide, so they do not want a committee of former Supreme Court or High Court judges; nor will they tolerate the High Court—the second-highest court in the land—although they say that a court has to decide. They Government want only the International Criminal Court to adjudicate but they know full well that that is a sham. No case of state genocide will get before the International Criminal Court in a million years because it will be blocked by one or more players in the Security Council. No Minister, in either this House or the other place, can stand before a Dispatch Box and say hand on heart that he or she honestly expects a case ever to get before the ICC, so I am afraid that the Government’s case is a sham. I do not blame my noble friend the Minister, who is thoroughly decent and very able, as he has been handed a poisoned chalice. But, while he has been forced to drink from it, the rest of us have not.
Initially, I simply could not understand why the Government, whom I support, are so terrified of passing this amendment—a Government who have had the courage to leave the EU and stand up to its bullying, have threatened to break international law with regard to the Northern Ireland protocol and have had the courage to throw out some of Putin’s spies but are terrified to make one gesture in case they offend the Chinese regime. But I think I can throw some light on the Government’s inexplicable position on this matter, and it is our dear friends in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, who are never short of a tyrant or two whom they can appease. A few weeks ago, I asked the FCDO about our relationship with China and, in a Written Answer last week, they called China an “important strategic partner”. That can be found in the Written Answers produced by Hansard.
Can your Lordships believe that? The UK Government consider China to be a strategic partner. Now, if they had said that China was a very important trading entity and we had to be careful in how we negotiated with it, I could accept that, but “strategic partner”? Surely that is the terminology we use to describe one of our NATO allies, not the despotic regime run by the Chinese Communist Party. But that perhaps explains why we do nothing about China and say nothing—in case we cause offence to our valued, so-called “strategic partner.” So, the Foreign Office calls a country which imposes dictatorship on Hong Kong, threatens Taiwan, and steals islands in the South China Sea to turn them into military bases, a strategic partner.
China caused the Wuhan virus, covered it up and lies about it every day, and economically attacked Australia when it called for a genuine independent inquiry into the virus. It steals every bit of technology it can, has cyberattacked all our vital industries, infiltrated our universities and schools, and the new head of MI5 says that it is a threat to our western way of life and democracy, yet the FCDO calls it a “strategic partner”. Typical FCDO: sue for peace before anyone declares war.
We can do nothing about these things in this Bill, but the western world has to get off its knees and start to stand up to China before it is too late. The genocide of the Uighurs, of which there is now overwhelming evidence, is a sample of how the Chinese communist regime will treat every race and people it subjugates.
In this Bill we can make a small start by tackling the issue of trading with a country which commits genocide. I thought that the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that we sent to the Commons last time was superior to this one. I am certain that it would have passed if Members of the other place had not been robbed of a chance to vote on it.
Last week the Canadian Parliament voted to describe the treatment of the Uighurs as genocide. If our Canadian colleagues can make such a judgment, surely the great Parliament of this House and the other place is able to do likewise. This amendment is not going nearly that far, but it wants to start a process of thorough investigation which could eventually determine genocide. It is then left to the UK Government to have a completely free hand to decide what to do about it.
We cannot tackle all the iniquities of the Chinese regime, but this amendment is a start. It will show that the UK Parliament, with our new independence, cares not only about trade and prosperity but about moral issues, human lives and people in a faraway country of whom we know nothing, to paraphrase Chamberlain.
I say to the Government that this will not go away. This House will come back to the issue of genocide time and again in every other Bill where there is the slightest chance of pushing an amendment like this. The Government will face this issue again and again until we get off our knees and stand up to China on genocide. I urge all noble Lords to support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Alton.
I rise once again to support my noble friend Lord Alton. It is always a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Blencathra, a former Chief Whip, who does himself down—he knew all the tricks of his trade.
I will not repeat the arguments I made in this Chamber on
As Members have said, it is deeply unfortunate that for such a huge and important issue it was felt adequate to schedule the debate in the other place for just one hour. This ensured the bundling together of your Lordships’ amendments in order to stop a vote on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alton. It is true that Erskine May is very clear that this is usual practice and is in order. While the business managers followed the letter of the law, they failed miserably in enacting the spirit of the law.
As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, makes clear, his amendment tidies up the Neill amendment. Let me explain by referring to Sir Geoffrey Nice QC, who argued that the Neill amendment applies to state and non-state actors and allows state parties to be held responsible for non-state parties. The alleged genocide does not have to be committed by the state but merely has to have happened in the territory. This contrasts with the Alton amendment, which is limited exclusively to state-sponsored genocide.
The Neill amendment would allow a Select Committee to force a vote on whether to continue FTA negotiations, allowing for a state to be held responsible via debate and a vote for the behaviour of a non-state party. The ramifications for some countries could be really significant. The Neill amendment would allow the committee to propose discontinuing trade talks with a state which may have done nothing wrong at all; all that is necessary is that alleged genocide took place in its territory. This is why the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, is the right one.
The Jewish festival of Purim takes place on Thursday night and Friday of this week. This is a day of untold celebration when we read the Book of Esther. In a nutshell, the Jews were living in the lands of the Persian Empire when a young Jewish girl called Esther became queen to King Xerxes and, through her bravery, appealed to the king to save the Jewish people and thwart an attempt to slaughter all the Jews. Purim will be celebrated —I hope in a socially distanced way—throughout the Jewish world this week to commemorate Esther’s courage in saving the Jewish people living in Persia 2,000 years ago from extinction.
It is in our DNA to call out injustice and fight for freedom. The Uighurs are calling out for justice and are fighting for freedom. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, is a perfect example of calling out injustice and fighting for that freedom. He has worked tirelessly to ensure that we are seen to be doing the right thing. I am honoured and privileged to support him once again.
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Polak. Like him, I feel honoured to speak in support of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool. I also pay particular tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for his resolve, persistence and most of all his humanity, because that is what this is ultimately about—our common humanity and common responsibility to bear witness to the values that underpin free democratic societies like ours. It is surely the responsibility of those who have power to stand up and protect the universal human rights of those who have absolutely none and who are victims of genocide—whether they be Uighurs, Rohingyas, or Yazidis.
As we have already heard, yesterday our Foreign Secretary gave a powerful speech to mark the UK’s return to the United Nations Human Rights Council following its re-election last October. As my noble friend Lord Alton told us, the Foreign Secretary described the situation in Xinjiang as “beyond the pale”. He is right to do so because if we want to be taken seriously by our global partners, including those whose agenda is to supplant our value system—especially democracy—then we need to deserve to be taken seriously.
That was yesterday; today, we have this fantastic opportunity to answer the Foreign Secretary’s call to arms and, by our deeds in the virtual Division Lobbies, to lend his words essential credence. This carefully crafted amendment enables us to do just that. Contrary to the impression given by the Government, time is of the essence—because genocide is not an academic question. If we want to stop and prevent genocide, we need to facilitate action now, today, by passing this amendment.
There is another reason why we should support the amendment. The Foreign Secretary highlighted in his speech that what is being perpetrated in Xinjiang is being done on an “industrial scale”. I wonder where we have heard that description before because, as any Holocaust survivor would remind us—as if that were necessary—we have been here before. It is astonishing, is it not, that we human beings have an amazing propensity to pretend that each generation is far too sophisticated to repeat the tragic mistakes of the past—yet, as the Holocaust survivor Primo Levi told the world, that is the best way of ensuring that we do repeat the tragic mistakes of the past.
As my noble friend Lord Blencathra said, there is another reason why we have been here before. Like him, I am also thinking of the infamous words of Neville Chamberlain during the Munich crisis in 1938, less than 100 years ago, when he referred dismissively—as we were reminded—to
“a quarrel in a far-away country, between people of whom we know nothing.”
In relation to the Rohingyas, the Yazidis or the Uighurs, are we really saying, in 2021, that appeasement pays and we simply do not care about the victims of genocide?
We should care a great deal. This amendment gives us the opportunity to look in the mirror: do we want to walk the walk and stand up for the values we profess to believe in, or do we encourage disrespect, cynicism and further genocides by only talking the talk? Is that what we want genocidal despots like Xi Jinping to think? This is the first test of global Britain’s commitment to freedom; let us not fail it. Let us pass this amendment and so enable the elected House to debate and vote on it.
My Lords, of course it is rare for this House to resist the opinion of the other place, and to do so again is deeply unusual—but there is a very good reason for doing so on this occasion, and we know what that reason is.
Certainly, on the last occasion in the other place, we saw a regrettable piece of sharp practice, which has been described by others, where the powers that be knitted together two amendments from this House, thereby diminishing the Commons vote. I am sure there was a great deal of back-slapping about who invented that wheeze, but it was unworthy on a subject as serious as this.
It is clear that there was, and remains, a huge clamour of voices, up and down this country and around other parts of the world, calling for this amendment to be passed—because it concerns an issue of profound moral obligation. We are signatories of the genocide convention and people of our word, and we are proud of this. It is worth remembering that we said, “Never again”.
My father’s generation, which is probably that of the fathers of virtually everybody in this House, fought in the Second World War, and he came home from war battle-worn and haunted by what was revealed when the gates of Auschwitz and other camps opened, having seen the evidence of the barbarity that had been perpetrated. He and others like him of our parents’ generation asked themselves thereafter about the horrors and whether they could have been prevented if there had been greater activity, in the 1930s and the years of the war, around what was taking place. Was there a point at which the Nazis could have been stopped in their hellish determination to extinguish a whole people? I wonder what my father would say now.
The genocide convention is about preventing atrocities, not waiting to count the bodies in mass graves to see if the tally is great enough—or waiting until the multiple crimes against humanity reach a level where, somehow, a bell rings. All the evidence received directing us to this most grievous of crimes points to genocide. You only have to hear the testimony of Uighur women, as I have, to register really deep alarm about them having children removed from them or being deracinated and stripped of their language, their culture, their religion and the family they love, placed in institutions a bit like borstals to whip them into line. You would also register alarm about them watching their husbands being taken off to forced labour camps or to disappear forever—and them being sterilised, prostituted and raped themselves. Their personal testimonies are so moving, and there is also the external photographic evidence of destroyed mosques and burial grounds. I have rehearsed that again —you have heard it before—because we must not forget what we are talking about here. The Uighur people are experiencing human degradation, torture and ways in which the human identity is taken from them.
I listened as others spoke about the courts, and I want to clarify some things for the House. Of course, the International Court of Justice is the court for the determination of serious crimes of genocide. There are two international courts that can potentially deal with genocide: the International Court of Justice is where plaints are laid by one nation against another, which is different from the International Criminal Court. The problem with the former—which is the traditional court where matters of this gravity would be dealt with, when a nation is conducting itself in this way—is that, after World War II, a small group of nations were given special status on the Security Council, and they have special powers and can exercise a veto. China is one of those powers, and we know that it would veto any plaint laid against it at the International Court of Justice. I will make it clear: that route to justice is therefore blocked.
The International Criminal Court should not be confused with that; it is where individuals are tried for grievous crimes, but the nation to which those individuals belong has to be a signatory to the Rome statute. China is not a signatory, so that route to justice is also blocked in relation to genocide. This turns us all into bystanders, and that is the problem.
When asked to declare a genocide, our Government says, “This is not a matter for Parliament; we can have debates and committees about it, but it is a matter for a competent court.” Of course, that means that we do not act at all; it is a recipe for inaction, which is why today’s debate and those that have gone before—as the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, has said—will come back if we do not decide today because most Members of Parliament, and many of the people up and country, feel that inaction in the face of genocide is not a position this nation can take.
We have very competent courts, and there are few courts more competent than our higher courts. Creating a procedure which lets a court determine whether there is sufficient evidence is the line that I would be arguing for today, but we are forced to present an alternative because we are meeting such resistance from government.
So we are looking for a compromise. The compromise presented to the House by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, is a principled one. It would create a judicial committee made up of the great judges who sit in this House. Their expertise would be drawn on in examining evidence and seeing whether it met legal thresholds. There is huge skill which we in the common law build up over years of experience as practitioners and then in the judiciary. It involves a particular kind of independence of mind that is inculcated over many years.
Let me assure the House that it would not be a conviction if that committee made a determination. It would be making a determination of whether the evidence had reached the standard. It would not prevent a referral to the International Court of Justice, should a time come where that became possible—maybe my prayers will be answered, and the Security Council and the United Nations will be reformed, but I think that we will have to wait a while for that.
The amendment would mean that our elected Parliament could make a decision that steps had to be taken by our Government. We have a whole range of possibilities as to what those steps might be such as the expulsion of ambassadorial staff or targeted sanctions. We now have Magnitsky law, where we can go after individuals, refusing them access to the assets that many of them have in Britain or imposing visa bans on their coming here. Such measures could be taken against Chinese party leaders, the governor of Xinjiang province, the superintendents of labour camps or the Minister of Justice or his equivalent. That move by this country to create Magnitsky law has led many others to do the same, including the European Union, Canada and the United States. Japan is now thinking of introducing targeted sanctions. We were in the lead in taking those steps and creating legal change to give teeth to international law. That is what we should do today by not sitting passively and allowing a genocide to take place.
It has been suggested that the amendment interferes with our constitution. I remind this House of our many debates where we have discussed the constitutional arrangements in this country and delighted in the fact that, by having an unwritten constitution, we have the capacity to create change when change is needed and the flexibility that is not available to many who have entrenched constitutional arrangements. There is no inhibition on our making the changes that were suggested in the original amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Alton.
We vote with frequency as Members of this House. It is an enormous privilege, as we always remind ourselves, to be in this House as people who are not elected. Our privilege should never be abused. However, some votes in Parliament have more meaning and weight than others because they say so much about our values and principles as a nation. They speak to the people that we are. I therefore urge noble Lords here and all those not in this House to vote for this amendment. It calls on courage, integrity and determination and will call upon them from Members of the Commons thereafter if we pass it. I strongly urge it, because this is one of those matters where we are being put to the test as to what we stand for. I urge noble Lords to vote for this amendment.
My Lords, my noble friend has just made an enormously powerful speech, and two points in particular will impress themselves on the House. The first is that the Government’s position in saying that it should be for the courts to decide whether a genocide is taking place but not giving them any powers even to offer an opinion on that fact is a recipe for inaction. It is a recipe for inaction in one of the worst causes imaginable because we are talking about genocide. It is a striking fact that, historically, the British Government have never declared a genocide to be in progress before it has been completed. We have to wrestle with the legacy of history. We did not do it in respect of Stalin; we did not do it in respect of Hitler. We have afterwards taught our children in schools about the horrors of genocide against the Jews and against many other races which those dictators and others carried through, so we should learn the lessons and seek to stop genocides in future.
The second powerful point made by my noble friend is that part of the reason why we should go down the route which the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has so convincingly laid out for us is not simply to reveal a genocide that is currently in progress—or may be; that is to be determined, but there is very good circumstantial evidence which should be tested and courts are good at doing so—but to limit the further extension of that atrocity while it is happening. We should do that rather than doing what may well happen, which is that in 20 or 30 years’ time, when people may talk about Xi Jinping in the same way as they talk about Stalin and Hitler, we ask: what are the lessons and why did we not learn them at the time?
The course proposed today seems not only deeply moral but relevant in terms of our own capacity to avoid greater horrors and problems that we ourselves will have to face. The noble Lord referred to a red line that he has; we should be much more worried about the red wall which we face in respect of Xi Jinping. That will have to be addressed over time, and it is much better that we get the measure of it earlier rather than later. Surely the lesson from such dictators in the past is that there was a moment when it was possible to stand up to them and find a way through that did not involve extreme action. We could all look at it in due course. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and I had a good-natured exchange last time about what he sees as the great weakness of the Foreign Office. It has not always been weak. My great hero is Ernie Bevin because he stood up to Stalin after 1945 and we did not have to repeat the horrors of another full-scale war. There is plenty of combustible material in respect of China that could lead to war in future. We have only to look at what is going on in Hong Kong and Taiwan, let alone what is going on inside China itself. These matters are weighty. My noble friend said that some votes matter more than others. One reason for that is the consequences of action and inaction, and there is no bigger set of issues than those that we are addressing today.
The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said that the Minister, for whom we have a high regard, had been handed a poisoned chalice. We are very glad to see that he is still well on the Government Front Bench and will be in a condition to reply to this debate at the end. However—if I may use a Chinese analogy—in trying to persuade us not to agree to this amendment, what the Minister has done is offer us a very Chinese artefact: a paper tiger. He has made all kinds of imprecations as to what might happen if we agree to the amendment. Apparently, the constitution is going to be ripped up forthwith, which we are doing by the back door—what a large back door; an extraordinary number of people appear to be walking through it in remarkable unison. We were told that the amendment would somehow go against the wishes of the elected House. On the previous amendment, where the Minister told us not to be seduced by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, he said that there was a resounding majority in the other place, which was why we should not insist on it. Not only was the majority when the Commons voted on the first of these amendments only 15 but, as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, rightly said, there was not a vote on the amendment in the name of noble Lord, Lord Alton; there was a resounding silence on it from the House of Commons. We should therefore resoundingly ask the House of Commons resoundingly to resolve its silence; that is our duty in respect of the amendment before us.
On the second element of the paper tiger the Minister put forward, he said, in establishing his red line, that the Government would not agree to expand the jurisdiction of the courts to assess the existence of genocide. But we are a parliamentary democracy. It is not for the Government to say whether the courts should assess whether genocide has taken place. It is for Parliament to legislate on whether the courts should have that power.
The Minister gave us a constitutional lecture on the separation of powers. It is not for the Government to tell the courts what they will and will not consider. That is for Parliament, making the law, to determine. It does not matter what the Government’s red line is; the issue is what Parliament’s red line is, and we do not know that yet, because the House of Commons has not had the opportunity to give its opinion. This House has given its opinion twice, which is unusual, since, normally, in ping-pong, we start to become faint-hearted and susceptible to the arguments about the role of this House and all that. Unusually, this House has had larger majorities as we have considered this matter again. I suspect there will be a very decisive majority at the end of this debate, too. I strongly urge all noble Lords who sympathise with the arguments, but are in doubt about what they should do, to vote for the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, because that will ensure this has the best possible consideration by the House of Commons.
I will make one final point about the red line and the red wall. The issues we face are extremely grave. If you read about the conversation between President Biden and President Xi Jinping, although there is a determination to have decent bilateral relationships, there is no clear meeting of minds between those two great powers. As the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, rightly said, it would be disingenuous of Her Majesty’s Government to pretend that there in respect of the United Kingdom, too.
Many noble Lords may read a thing called China Daily, which we have circulated free to us—the propaganda sheets of the Chinese Government. China Daily’s account of that conversation should leave one in no doubt about what Xi Jinping said. According to its interpretation, he said:
“China hopes the US respects China’s core interests and cautiously deals with matters related to Taiwan, Hong Kong and Xinjiang, which are China’s domestic issues concerning the nation’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.”
On the opposite page, in a remarkable story headlined “Reporting the truth about China”, there is a whole series of assertions and lies about what is going on Xinjiang, including the claim that there are no events that are out of order taking place there, that the re-education camps are to improve the employment prospects of the Uighurs and nothing more, and that in the BBC facts have been “twisted” and the situation
“has been angled to give a certain, preconceived message.”
Of course, since we last debated this issue, the BBC has been banned from China and Hong Kong.
That brings us back to the need to have a clear assessment of what is going on, attracting and weighing evidence. That is the fundamental purpose of this amendment. When this matter was last considered by the House of Commons—in the strange procedure that did not actually allow a vote to take place on the key issue—Greg Hands said:
“Fundamentally, it is right and proper that Parliament takes a position on credible reports of genocide relating to proposed free trade agreements rather than, in effect, subcontracting responsibility to the courts to tell us what to think.”—[Official Report, Commons, 9/2/21; col. 219.]
Parliament is not subcontracting responsibility to the courts. On the contrary, it is asking eminent judicial figures and the courts to report on and expose the facts, so we know what is happening. Once those facts have been exposed, it is for Parliament and the Government to decide what action should follow. But we will not get that action unless we have the facts. This is a circular process: we need the facts; we need proper inquiry; we need measured judgments made on them just so that Ministers, such as the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, can make balanced judgments in due course.
We do not want, in 20 or 30 years’ time, to have to spend time in our schools teaching our young people about the genocide in China in the 2020s that we did nothing to resist, involving what could be terrible consequences in terms of the relationships between the great powers, because we were not even prepared to consider whether a genocide was taking place.
I am not sure I have ever said this before, and I do not know if I will say it again, but it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Adonis. He shouts at the Government even more than I do, which I welcome. I agreed with every word he said. It is a credit to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that he has managed to unite the noble Lords, Lord Blencathra and Lord Adonis. That really is quite remarkable.
In fact, this debate is remarkable. There has been an incredible number of powerful, principled, passionate speeches from all around the House. The noble Lord has united the House on this matter of principle. It shows that this is not about politics. This is not politicking. This is about ethics, morality, having a clear conscience and making sure that we behave as a democracy should, by abhorring genocide and people being murdered, tortured and imprisoned. We really ought to be speaking out on it. This is about operating as an enlightened nation, and quite often I feel we fail at that. Here, we have a chance to put that right.
I would like to say that, when we talk about genocide, we ought to talk as well about ecocide—large-scale environmental destruction and ecological damage. Although it is not as obvious, it is a slow genocide. It drives people away from their land, makes them poor and gives them fewer opportunities and terrible lives. We should accept that we do that sort of damage, and that we do it in virtually every act of our lives. In some way, we impact on our environment and the rest of the world and, by doing that, we can damage the health and well-being of other nations and people who live in the places where we get our food or the minerals for our phones. So we ought to think very carefully about how we operate as individuals and as a nation.
Amendment C3 gives us a route to raise genocide crimes in Parliament and ensure that we do not make dodgy deals with murderous regimes. It also shows effective co-operation between your Lordships’ House and the other place. So I congratulate everyone who has been involved in this, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Alton, who has carried us all along in his wake. He is making it easier for us to do the right thing. Remember that: this is the right thing. This is not about politics; it is about honesty, kindness, generosity and being good people.
Having said all that, I would want to pass something much stronger than this, but I accept it has been tough getting even this far, so I also urge all noble Lords to vote for this amendment.
My Lords, it is a difficult day for me to stand up and speak from the perspective I will speak from. I know I will disappoint many in this House, not least my noble friend Lord Alton. Noble Lords will know of my long-standing and academic interest in foreign affairs and human rights. I am, therefore, compelled to revert, I am afraid, to first principles and be the only voice to speak in favour of the Government’s position.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, passionately believes in two propositions. The first is that the international human rights system is broken, and the second is that we must create a vehicle to punish China in a generic Bill that is intended to define the process by which we scrutinise trade deals. That has been the tenor of most of the speeches we have heard today. I shall briefly set out why, with enormous respect for him, I oppose both approaches.
The noble Lord will know that Lemkin and Lauterpacht did not work on the conventions on genocide and crimes against humanity for their unilateral use. They were designed to be multilateral instruments to protect the international human rights system. That system, largely created by the United Kingdom, is now in its 70s. It is problematic and does not have the tools to deal with violations whereby state parties are themselves major enforcers of the system while carrying out egregious violations. We cannot challenge them due to the mere fact that they sit with us on rule-making bodies such as the United Nations Security Council. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, alluded to that. It is therefore left to the rest of the world to take action jointly and multilaterally. That action is still there for us to take, irrespective of the fact that China sits as a permanent member of the Security Council. It is the route that the Government wish to take; at least, that is my understanding of their intentions.
The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, speaks of the lessons of history being historical. Yes, the lessons of history are usually historical, and today’s system has held for 70 years. There have been violations, which we have heard about in this Chamber. As to the idea that the United Kingdom unilaterally could have done much about them, I cast my mind back to my 40-something years in foreign affairs and remember only one occasion when the United Kingdom was able to intervene unilaterally—a small-scale invasion in Sierra Leone in the early 1990s. It was a brave attempt, which succeeded. However, on the whole, and with some caution, I warn people that if they think that by passing this kind of amendment we are going to be free to stomp the world unilaterally, taking on powers such as China, they need to think again.
My second point, which is about China, demonstrates exactly what is wrong with this debate. In the final analysis, I am unprepared to use generic legislation for specific ends. I refer also to the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, that the judicial committee advocated in the amendment would merely help us to ascertain the facts. Judges are not substitutes for intelligence reports, scrutiny undertaken by our Select Committees or academic scrutiny. We have all heard during the passage of the Bill about the numerous reports of the last three years, not least from the noble Lord, Lord Alton. That is a matter for us. It is a circular argument of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, whereby the facts show that genocide is happening in China, yet we need a committee to tell us of those facts.
I do not come to this House every day to pass legislation in order to pass on that responsibility to great judges, however learned they may be. These two Houses are the places where the law and changes to it must be deliberated upon and agreed. Each and every one of us carries that responsibility and it should not be outsourced to our colleagues. It is for us, as parliamentarians, to determine these matters for ourselves on the basis of our own intellect and conscience.
The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, had a good go at the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office. As noble Lords can imagine, if one has been involved in foreign affairs for some 40 years, one has seen people come and go. He says that the western world needs to stand up to China. I agree and have been saying so in this House for more than a decade. My first encounter with human rights abuses of the Uighurs in China was in 2004, the same year in which I entered this House, when I found out on a trip to that country what was actually going on. I agree with him that we need to stand up to China, but in doing so, we have no choice. We are a mid-sized power with a mid-sized economy, and our jobs, our people’s human rights, also matter. Not many people recall that human rights also include social and economic rights. Our jobs and our citizens’ human rights are at stake in these debates, particularly if we single out one country for action in a generic Bill. We might do that but it will serve as an impediment to other countries in doing trade deals with us.
If we want to stand up to China, we have no choice but to do it through working with the United States, the European Union, the Commonwealth and all the other strategic powers. Here, I concede that I do not see China as a strategic partner. However, along with other strategic partners, we need to decide how to amend and strengthen the existing global order to make China respect and uphold the values that we wish it to.
My Lords, at this point I must ask if there is anyone else present in the Chamber who wishes to contribute to the debate. No? In which case, I shall call the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed.
My Lords, characteristically, this has been another powerful debate with, inevitably, a degree of emotion—but less emotion and more considered judgment, which is appropriate at this stage of the Bill.
My view is that the UK can act; and when we act, many people still look at how we pass our legislation in this Parliament and at our behaviour around the world. We can lead by example and, in many cases, we have done so. If it were argued that proposals on human trafficking and forced labour should not reach beyond UK businesses operating globally, and that we should act only in a multilateral forum, other countries would not follow. The UK’s record on human rights has been good but should be better. This debate, because it is on the Trade Bill, is about how we interact with our views of human rights and what triggers exist to remove preferential trading arrangements from countries that are in gross dereliction of their duty on human rights, regardless, in many respects, of a flawed decision by an international tribunal. Ultimately, it is the UK that makes its decisions.
Five years ago, President Xi was addressing both Houses next door in the Royal Gallery. I shall refer to China first and then open up my argument to the wider area of human rights. A joint statement was issued by the UK Government and the Chinese Government, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, had his beady eye on it then. The communiqué, issued on
“The UK and China commit to building a global comprehensive strategic partnership for the 21st Century. This visit opens a golden era in UK-China relations featuring enduring, inclusive and win-win cooperation.”
“Win-win cooperation” is a classic Chinese line. The statement continues:
“In the last decade, the bilateral relationship has flourished and matured with close high-level exchanges, deeper political trust, fruitful economic cooperation and wider people-to-people contact.”
Some of those factors remain the case but some have been significantly damaged, as noble Lords have indicated and as the Foreign Secretary highlighted. That joint communiqué highlighted seven co-operation agreements, covering £30 billion of trade, strategic partnership agreements and joint alliances providing preferential relationships. However, it did not include a free-trade agreement. We have more than £30 billion of trade covering a whole separate area.
The question in my mind, which the Government have failed to address from the beginning of the Trade Bill until now, is what consequences there are for preferential trading agreements with a country which the UK has decided is acting beyond the pale, in advance of waiting for any form of international tribunal so deciding. As the noble Lord said in the House when he became a Minister, he has visited China over 300 times in 30 years. There is probably no one contributing in this debate with greater experience of visiting and working with China. The question now is what the Government will do and what the consequences will be for our trading relationships. At the moment, there are insufficient mechanisms to trigger to pull back on our preferential trading relationships with China.
An interesting fact that has not been mentioned so far—I hope noble friends will not be surprised if I mention the European Union, though this is not the classical Liberal line of saying that we were better inside it—as we discussed this morning at the all-party trade strategy group that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, chaired before, is that the European Union has published its trade review. The European Union trade review, to give one example, has now put forward proposals to make companies legally responsible for violations of labour and environmental standards in their supply chains. The Government have not indicated this.
Why have they done this? European Commissioners have put forward this proposal because they know that Volkswagen operates a manufacturing plant in Xinjiang, and that clothing goods have been used in the re-education camps for forced labour. It is inconceivable that some of these products are not in the UK at the moment; coming from a textile area, I always make sure that I know where the wool for my suits or the cotton for my shirts is produced. How many among us are wearing Chinese garments at the moment? How many of us have asked where those garments were produced and what the labour standards were in those factories? I hope this debate opens up the wider aspect of forced labour and human rights.
My point is that the trade policy review, which is looking at hard-wiring rules specifically on forced labour in trade law, is a result of the European Parliament indicating that it may not approve the China investment accord. It is the strength of Parliament, on behalf of the people, to indicate that trading relationships must have standards on human rights. What is our framework? What is the Government’s approach on triggering mechanisms and what consequences will there be?
Moving on to what the Minister has said, I am glad that this debate was shortly after the previous one, because we all heard him say that it is not possible for the Government to guarantee debating time for recommendations from committees. However, this is now the Government’s position in their amendment. The inconsistency is so glaring. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, that this is not a great constitutional issue—this is the Government’s choice. If they wanted to make these changes, they could. They have just chosen not to.
The third area is that we have now embarked on trading discussions with other countries in which there are allegations of considerable human rights abuses. I mentioned previously our discussions with Cambodia. The European Union has removed trade preferences on certain areas of trade with Cambodia. The UK has not done that; we are still operating the full trade preferences. In a Written Answer to my noble friend Lady Northover, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, said
“The UK is concerned about the trajectory of democracy in Cambodia” and, going on to say all the human rights concerns, said
“The UK also uses multinational fora to raise concerns”, but not, clearly, about trading relationships. That omission must be resolved.
The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, is absolutely right that we should not simply have mechanisms that are retrospective if an international body has so decided. I accept the argument that there are significant flaws in having that with countries such as China, but looking online at Genocide Watch—an organisation I have not spoken to so cannot verify the information—China is highlighted in the area of Stage 9 warnings for extermination of people. Iraq and the Yazidis are there, as we have debated previously; so are Ethiopia, India for Kashmir and Assam, Turkey with the Turkish army, Saudi Arabia in Yemen, Myanmar with the Rohingya, Burundi, Nigeria, the Central African Republic, Somalia and Sudan. If we are to have preventive policies on human rights, we must have clear policy on human rights and trade from the Government.
I repeat what I said in the previous debate. These Benches are not asking the Government to do what they did not say they intended to do themselves. The noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, told the Joint Committee on Human Rights in its inquiry into human rights protection and international agreements:
“The UK’s exit from the EU provides us with an opportunity to explore how we can most appropriately use free trade agreements to pursue broader international objectives … The Government is exploring all options in the design of future trade and investment agreements, including relevant human rights provisions within these”.
We are still to see these. Until we do and the Government can be clear what consequences there are in our preferential trading agreements for countries such as China, the Minister can be assured that this House and the parties and Members in it will pursue these issues relentlessly.
My Lords, one thing that is clear in this debate is that this House is united in its absolute opposition and horror to the crime of genocide. There is no difference between us. I also pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for his work on human rights.
Throughout the scrutiny of this Bill, the debate has been about ministerial accountability and parliamentary scrutiny. These Benches originally sought to complement the original amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alton; we wanted to provide a safety net in case the courts decide there is insufficient evidence to permit a ruling of genocide. We also know that the horrific crime of genocide is above all those other despicable crimes against humanity, crimes which we often hear reports of but which would not pass the test of genocide. That is what we were trying to do. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, that in scrutinising this Trade Bill today we are trying to ensure that we match the UK’s commitments with its actions, including on human rights and international obligations, when it comes to preferential trade, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, just indicated.
I have said before—and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, mentioned this in his introduction—that we want proper joined-up government, to end the position of one government department condemning the actions of a country that commits outrageous crimes against humanity while another department signs preferential trade agreements. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, is absolutely right to remind us of the Prime Minister’s words on
“whatever the occasional political difficulties”.
Genocide is not a political difficulty. We should be absolutely clear where this country stands.
Just a few days after the Prime Minister made that statement, last Thursday, the US House of Representatives reintroduced a bipartisan Bill that would ban imports from China’s Xinjiang region unless it is certified they are not produced with forced labour, and allow further sanctions against Chinese officials responsible for abuses against Muslims. Those are the actions of a state that is concerned about these horrendous crimes against humanity.
We are in a different climate, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said. The decisions this Government make on trade outside the European Union, and the way those decisions are taken, are opening up an entirely new frontier in Britain’s responsibility for what happens to human rights overseas. The question is whether we embrace that responsibility or ignore it. That is what this debate has really been about. This House has started a debate down the other end and, actually, we have made progress. I have heard speeches from Ministers and MPs that I am incredibly proud of. They have stated their commitment to human rights; they have stated that they will take them into account. We have made progress and we should not forget that.
However, when it comes to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, we have a responsibility to ensure, as my noble friend Lord Adonis said, that the Government do not get away with silencing the elected House. It is our opportunity to give the elected House a voice on this subject, because it has obviously indicated its desire to consider this issue. It is really important that we wholeheartedly back the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, this afternoon. In doing so, we should not forget the words of the Minister about how human rights will play an important part in consideration of trade matters. He has made that commitment and it will be our job in the future, as a House that scrutinises, to hold such Ministers properly to account. I hope that we will increase the majority in this House in support of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, this afternoon.
My Lords, we have again heard powerful, reasoned and deeply personal speeches and I deeply sympathise with noble Lords who wish to take a stand on this issue, particularly in light of gross human rights violations committed by the Chinese state against the Uighurs in Xinjiang. For the record, I completely align myself with the abhorrence felt by noble Lords on these matters. We have common ground on that, which is why the UK has led international action, including at the United Nations, to hold China to account for its policies in the region. It is why the Foreign Secretary announced, on
Where I differ from the comments we have heard today is that I believe that the amendment passed by the other House, which is before us today, is a reasonable, proportionate and substantive compromise on the part of the Government to ensure that the voice of Parliament is heard on this vital issue. Again, I think it is common ground between all of us that we must have a way for the voice of Parliament to be heard on these issues; the dispute has been about the means by which that voice can be heard. However, I make the point again that the decisions to be made on future trade agreements are political decisions. They are—with absolutely appropriate oversight from Parliament, and I accept that point without reservation—for the Government to make.
I call on noble Lords to join in the political debate about trade and human rights with all of the passion and conviction they have demonstrated in this House in recent weeks on a whole range of topics connected with standards, human rights and other matters in relation to free trade agreements. I ask them to consider rallying around this sensible amendment, which ensures and guarantees in law that they will always have the opportunity to hold the Government to account for their trade policy wherever Parliament itself has identified credible reports of this most heinous crime of all, genocide. It is not the substance that we are disagreeing on today, it is the means by which this should be done.
I believe that the amendment passed by the other place is a fair amendment that avoids the constitutional and other issues that have been brought to the fore with amendments from the Opposition, while also directly addressing the concerns previously raised by noble Lords. We now have the opportunity to vote for that amendment and perhaps bring the Bill, which I stress is a Trade Bill, one step closer to becoming law.
My Lords, the Companion is clear that I should be brief, no longer than three minutes, and I promise to stay within the rules. These have been remarkable speeches and I am grateful to everyone who has taken part. The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, reminded us that the BBC has been banned in China. He did not say why. The BBC has been banned in China for broadcasting testimonies given by Uighur women. They were silenced for speaking. We have not been silenced today—it is one of the privileges that we enjoy, referred to by other noble Lords, to speak and to act. We must use our privileges; we must uphold our values and give the world a lead.
The 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was signed by us as a state. It is not a multilateral document but a document affirmed by us as a state, and it places duties on us: to prevent genocide, but also to protect and to punish those who have been responsible. Clearly, we have been derelict in those duties. Nothing in this amendment prevents us acting multilaterally. The only way that the other House can have any say about this issue is for us now to send this amendment back there.
“for such a time as this”.
For such a time as this, we must now step up to the mark and ensure that this issue of genocide is dealt with in the way it should have been dealt with over these last 70 years. The only way that can happen is by ensuring that we see legislative change, not simply talking shops or paper tigers, as has been put during the debate. I beg leave to seek the opinion of the House.
Ayes 367, Noes 214.