Lord Moylan (Con)

My Lords, on the question of steel, the Minister said that the amount of steel that is going to be subject to tariffs is relatively small—I think that was the expression he used. Is he willing, after this meeting of the Committee, to put in writing to members of the Committee some assessment of the cost to Great Britain over the next, say, four or five years of the tariffs on steel? In other words, how much of the steel expected to be imported from abroad falls under the tariff-free quota and what value does not and therefore attracts a tariff of 50%? If the Minister is willing to put that in writing, it would be extremely helpful to Members of the Committee. On the other amendments, it is marvellous that there is such unanimity across the Committee about the importance of all these issues: technological innovation, cyber security and the sharing of data and the advantages that flow from that. The pity is only that the Government believe that we can rely on their assurances in this regard rather than having matters specified in the Bill. It is not that I do not believe the Minister and the assurances he gives, and indeed the assurances he gives at the Dispatch Box have a certain value. However, in the case of creating a hugely powerful monopoly with interests of its own and the most exiguous accountability to the Secretary of State and Parliament, the bar is higher for accepting assurances that everything is going to be fine when it is implemented and for the years that follow. Therefore, I think it may well be the case that noble Lords, when we return to this question on Report, will wish to retable some, at least, of these amendments, if the Government have not found it possible in the interim to give way on some of them and offer written assurances in the Bill, such as we are looking for. However, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.