All 3 Debates between Greg Hands and Tim Loughton

Mon 22nd Mar 2021
Trade Bill
Commons Chamber

Consideration of Lords amendments & Consideration of Lords amendments & Consideration of Lords Amendments
Tue 9th Feb 2021
Trade Bill
Commons Chamber

Consideration of Lords amendmentsPing Pong & Consideration of Lords amendments

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Greg Hands and Tim Loughton
Tuesday 22nd February 2022

(2 years, 2 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jane Hunt Portrait Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

4. What steps he is taking to support the growth of the hydrogen sector in the UK.

Tim Loughton Portrait Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

21. What steps he is taking to support the growth of the hydrogen sector in the UK

Greg Hands Portrait The Minister for Energy, Clean Growth and Climate Change (Greg Hands)
- View Speech - Hansard - -

We are delivering on the hydrogen strategy that was published last August and will soon launch our £240 million net zero hydrogen fund and the first £100 million allocation round for electrolytic hydrogen projects and publish our sector development action plan.

Trade Bill

Debate between Greg Hands and Tim Loughton
Greg Hands Portrait Greg Hands
- Hansard - -

I am going to make some progress; there is very limited time.

Let me deal with the matter of engaging financial privilege. When an amendment is designated as engaging Commons financial privilege, the Government are procedurally required to provide this as the reason if disagreeing to the motion, although our reasons for disagreeing in this instance are much broader, as I have just set out. Financial privilege is sufficient reason in itself to deem the amendment disagreed to. The designation of Lords amendments as engaging financial privilege is an impartial process determined by the Speaker on the advice of House authorities.

We have listened closely to debates in both this House and the other place and take seriously the issue of genocide and the passions it has rightly stirred on all sides. Consequently, I can announce from this Dispatch Box today that the Government are willing to work with Parliament and relevant Select Committee Chairs should they choose to establish new Joint Committees or sub-committees or to engage the expertise of former members of the judiciary in considering reports of genocide in the context of our proposed free trade agreements.

For example, a new Joint Committee could be made up of members of both Select Committees. The relevant Lords Committee would have Cross-Bench membership and it would be possible for the convener to ensure that at least one of those members were an ex-judge. That is the established process followed for other Committees, which have been chaired by ex-Law Lords. In addition, with the agreement of the usual channels, it would be possible for additional Members with relevant expertise to be appointed to the Joint Committee, as is the case with the Lords Sub-Committee on the Northern Ireland protocol. The Joint Committee would also be able to take evidence from other former members of the judiciary, if desired.

Tim Loughton Portrait Tim Loughton
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Will the Minister give way?

Greg Hands Portrait Greg Hands
- Hansard - -

I am going to make more progress.

In any case, it is not necessary to set out such provision in legislation. In fact, I would be surprised if hon. Members voted today to bind themselves by setting out in legislation the procedures of a parliamentary Sub-Committee. Parliament is free to amend its Standing Orders to set up Committees and Sub-Committees as it chooses, and to take evidence from those with legal expertise if it deems that to be necessary. Legislating for these matters would only serve to remove flexibility from both Parliament and Government should the issue of genocide as it pertains to trade arise in future. A more nimble and flexible approach may be necessary depending on the context.

The precise details remain to be worked out—by Parliament, quite properly—but I hope it will be clear from what I have said today that the Government are supportive of working with hon. Members on this issue, and we are committed to doing so in line with the process previously agreed to by this House on 9 February.

Tim Loughton Portrait Tim Loughton
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Will the Minister give way?

Greg Hands Portrait Greg Hands
- Hansard - -

There is very limited time in this debate.

However, we regret that we cannot support the creation of a parliamentary judicial Committee as envisaged in Lord Alton’s amendment, as it blurs the distinction between the legislative and the judicial, and runs contrary to Government policy that it is for competent courts to make determinations of genocide.

Finally, I would like to highlight the statement that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made earlier today on the sanctions that the Government will be undertaking. I hope that that is another illustration of the Government’s commitment in this very important area, taking tough action on China in relation to Xinjiang with Magnitsky sanctions, in conjunction with our international allies.

In the light of what I have said, I hope hon. Members will support amendments 3C and 3D.

Trade Bill

Debate between Greg Hands and Tim Loughton
Tim Loughton Portrait Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Greg Hands Portrait Greg Hands
- Hansard - -

I am going to make more progress—sorry, I will not give way further.

The wording of that substantive motion will be provided by the Committee. A similar process would ensue in the other place to take note of the report. The process that I have outlined would be triggered in each case by the publication of the Select Committee report.