A move backed by the Board of Deputies and other religious groups which would have required the government to reconsider any trade deal with a country found by the High Court to be committing genocide has been narrowly defeated in a House of Commons vote.

The measure, which was opposed by the government  but backed by a sizable cross-party alliance of MPs, was defeated by 319 to 308 on Tuesday. It meant the government secured a majority of just 11.

Following the defeat of Genocide Amendment to the Trade Bill in the House of Commons on Tuesday, which the Board had vocally backed, President Marie van der Zyl said: “While it was very close, we are disappointed that Parliament has not used this opportunity to show its support for the Uyghurs as they face an apparent genocide in China.

“That said, we will continue to campaign energetically for justice for the Uyghurs and will be supporting the revised amendment to be tabled in the House of Lords. The Uyghurs will have their day in court.”

The amendment was the work of the independent peer Lord Alton and was aimed mainly at protecting the Uyghur Muslims in China’s Xinjiang province.

It attempted to stop the situation whereby the international courts often cannot make rulings on genocide since nation states such as China do not recognise the relevant courts, or veto any reference to such issues.

Alongside the Board, the Conservative Muslim Forum,  the International Bar Association and several Christian groups had also backed the amendment.

The move had been heavily endorsed by the House of Lords.

Nus Ghani, a leading member of the inter-parliamentary alliance on China, said: “When the British Board of Deputies of Jewish colleagues state they are reminded of the Holocaust when they consider the state of the Uyghur people it cannot get any worse than that.”

Peers will now be asked by campaigners to insert the measure in a revised form back into the trade bill, forcing MPs to consider the proposal again.

Greg Hands, the trade minister, had opposed the amendment as a fundamental denial of parliamentary supremacy.

He said he was open to holding further discussions with his rebel MPs, but offered no specific concession.

Mr Hands told MPs: “To accept this specific amendment would allow the High Court to frustrate, even revoke trade agreements entered into by the government and approved after parliamentary scrutiny. This is a completely unprecedented and unacceptable erosion of the royal prerogative and not something the government could support.”