My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for his clear and concise introduction to the Bill before us today, and to the noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord Purvis, for blending seamlessly from Second Reading mode to
Committee mode, which has allowed us to get into some of the detail that we perhaps would not have had if this had been a traditional Second Reading.
I am afraid that, rather like them, I have detailed questions to ask but, like others, we are not against what the Government are trying to do here. We will support them in getting the Bill on to the statute book because it clearly is appropriate and in our best interests that we have the right legislative framework under which data is exchanged. That presumably must lie at the heart of what is being done today.
My first point has not been raised by the other two speakers but was implied in much of what they said. The Bill takes Clauses 8 to 10 of the Trade Bill currently in your Lordships’ House, but does not include Clause 7. This is a bit odd. Can the Minister reflect on that when he responds? Clause 7 is about the collection of exporter information by HMRC. Presumably the current Bill being only about the disclosure of information held means that powers already exist under which data is being collected, and that these powers do not need to go into the new Bill because they will continue, as it were, subterraneously as the new Bill comes into effect from 1 January 2021, and until it is sunsetted, but is that right? The question left hanging in the air is: if the clause that we will be considering under the Trade Bill on 6 January needs our consideration on 6 January, why is it not needed on 1 January? If it is not needed, precisely which powers are being used to collect the information that will subsequently be dealt with under Clauses 8 to 10? I hope I have said enough to explain that issue, and I look forward to the response.
We may indeed have amendments to Clause 7 when we get to it in due course, and of course that would be an opportunity for us to explore this matter a bit more. But it would be interesting to have confirmation from the Minister that we have the powers and that we do not need to worry about which leg of the statute book we are relying on for this.
Secondly, as others have mentioned, the amendments made in the short Bill before us have been based on amendments discussed in Committee and are on the Marshalled List for consideration on 6 January. However, I notice that the versions currently on the Marshalled List are the original amendments; they are not the ones in this short Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, was right to raise this as an issue. The drafting has changed. It might just be that a different draftsperson is holding the pen but it is, to some extent, significant. This afternoon we are dealing with a Bill with one set of amendments to the wording which will then be presented to your Lordships’ House for consideration on Report and which might, if the amendments currently laid are the ones that we are discussing, differ. Does that matter? I do not think that it does particularly but, again, it would be interesting to have a clear statement from the Dispatch Box about whether the amendments currently laid are the ones that we will be considering on 6 January. If they are not, can the Minister confirm that he will be changing them in short order?
Thirdly, I very much welcome the amendment that deals with the devolved Administrations. There was clearly a lacuna in the original drafting. They have
powers in relation to trade that are not reserved and they will therefore want to access the information that has been gathered and make use of it in an appropriate way. It is important that they are consulted on more issues relating to this Bill. The Minister will be aware that we are likely to come back to this again on Report in the light of the discussions that we have been having on the internal market Bill. Out of that has emerged a framework of drafting which is helpful in relation to how we wish to see the UK Government deal with the devolved Administrations—that is, not just to consult them but to seek their consent. Will the Minister take that back and look at it again to see whether the drafting can be amended slightly to incorporate this new version?
There has always been a concern that the UK Government having to consult the devolved Administrations was one thing but, where they also had to seek consent, there was a danger that there might be game-playing or a wish in one of the devolved areas to hold things up, effectively giving a veto to the devolved Administrations. The way round that in the internal Market Bill is quite clever. Where it is important that the decision is not delayed, the Bill includes a phrase about the seeking of consent being time-limited to a month and, if for any reason the consent has not been received within a month, the Minister has the power to carry on with the regulatory framework. I recommend that to the Minister and would be grateful if he would have a look at it.
My final point is on the sunset clause. This might just be the drafting but it is rather awkwardly framed in the short Bill before us. The Secretary of State appears to have quite extensive powers to mark his own homework and make decisions, but the Bill which will emerge from your Lordships’ House and from Parliament and which will receive Royal Assent as the Trade Bill will, we think and hope, have significant changes relative to the draft received in your Lordships’ House some time ago. Would these changes be sufficient to suggest to a Secretary of State that the Bill was not sufficiently similar for this short Bill to be required to stay in force? If so, can the Minister give an assurance from the Dispatch Box that, if this is a phrasing issue, it is not a principal issue, and that the principle he wishes to see in play is that this Bill is definitely sunsetted; that there is no threat to the Trade Bill as it progresses through Parliament, however different it might look at the end of the process compared with how it is at the moment; and that we are not just trading clever words here but that this is a genuine attempt to make sure that we do not have the statute book cluttered with different forms of the same piece of legislation? That would obviously be inappropriate.
I hope the Minister will understand that I in no sense wish to be too negative but we would not wish to see a situation where, for reasons that are as yet unclear, the Government might fall out of love again with their Trade Bill and decide that they did not want to see it on the statute book. We would then be left with a rushed-through piece of legislation—which would probably be okay—dealing with this aspect. That might well have significant consequences that we cannot foresee at this stage, and that would be unsatisfactory.
I think that I have dealt with all the main issues that we wanted to raise. We have effectively covered the Bill both with a Second Reading and a short Committee stage, in substance if not in name. I think that the right thing for the Government to do is to take this legislation through its remaining stages as quickly as they can, so that we see it on the statute book. However, there are points that we will come back to and we look forward to having detailed discussions on those.
2.05 pm