Question to the Department for Business and Trade:

To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the potential economic growth generated by the full utilisation of the Electronic Trade Documents Act 2023, and what steps they are taking to fully utilise that Act.

Answered by Baroness Gustafsson - Minister of State (Department for Business and Trade)

The Electronic Trade Documents Act’s Impact Assessment estimates that electronic trade documents (ETDs) could generate £1.1bn over a decade by reducing trade costs, accelerating transactions, and improving access to trade finance, particularly for SMEs.

To support ETD uptake, we have recently launched several initiatives in the Trade Strategy. This includes plans to establish Digital Trade Corridors with key European markets, setting up an SME Capability Programme to help smaller firms adopt digital trade tools, and launching an ETD Information Hub on Business.Gov.UK to support businesses transition. We are also promoting international legal reform on ETDs through bilateral and multilateral engagement.

Found: Commission on Justice in Wales, chaired by the former Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd

Found: Sir Robin Knowles CBE and Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd – Written Evidence (ROL0062) Submission by Sir Robin

Found: /government/speeches/lord-chancellor-speech-at-the-global-law-summit-23-february-2015 and Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd

Found: The Committee was established in 2017 at the instigation of the then Lord Chief Justice, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd

Found: For example, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, a crossbench peer and former Lord Chief Justice, told BBC Radio

Found: expeditious exercise of the functions of the Crown Estate in Wales.” 59/1 HL Bill 29—I LORD THOMAS OF CWMGIEDD

Found: For example, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, a crossbench peer and former Lord Chief Justice, told BBC Radio

Access to Justice APPG
Wednesday 11th June 2025

Found: has been warned that the Bill faces opposition in the Lords with various peers including Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd

Found: the last year include those with the Counsel General, the President of Welsh Tribunals, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd

Found: Lordthomas@arbitratorsinternational.com The Rt Hon The Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd PC, FLSW Hannah

<p>Yes. Again, I'm very grateful to the Counsel General for the tone and her general approach to this matter. I was wondering, building on Alun Davies's question, whether at least the conversation could be had to see if we can't do everything in the context of this Bill, whether we could do something. I'm very conscious of the fact that, Counsel General, you will not be in this post beyond this election, and sometimes you've got to seize the opportunities when they present themselves.</p>
<p>Other legislatures, well, clearly in the context of—I should give him his proper title, sorry—Lord Thomas of Gresford—. There's a plethora of Lord Thomases, of course, and I think Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd has spoken in the Committee Stage debate and was supportive, I think, of this particular provision. Many of those who contributed said that so much in Westminster operates by—. Correction slips have developed by convention. There comes a point when conventions, really, only can get used so far, and we need to create a modern, fit-for-the-twenty-first-century, digital, if possible, process of correction that doesn't require you to have to revoke, amend or bring something back all the time for all the reasons where there is clearly common ground. It would be still, I think, very useful, notwithstanding the elements within the wider context that we don't have complete control over, to see whether some version of this amendment could be brought forward at Stage&nbsp;3.</p>
<p>I will move the amendment. I should point out that I think this particular amendment did have, I believe, frontbench Conservative support in the House of Lords. On that basis, I'd like to move the amendment, but I look forward to continuing the productive, constructive discussions with the Counsel General at a later stage.</p>

<p>Yes, sure. I certainly would welcome that proposal, and I'd welcome further discussions that we could have, Counsel General, also in the context of this Bill, between this stage and the next stage; I'm anticipating. I will be moving the amendment, because I think it's an important parliamentary principle, and I think that it would be good to have it voted on on that basis alone. But I anticipate that it's likely to fail at this stage, and I would appreciate the opportunity to continue the conversation.</p>
<p>I think it's important to recognise that, as I said, this amendment really reflects a growing body of opinion. It actually was—. The whole issue of amendable statutory instruments, of course, has been debated in Westminster for many decades now, but this particular proposal, I think, again, the procedure, I think, was first suggested through a report by Lord Goodlad in 2010; again in a report by Lord Strathclyde in 2015. It was recommended by the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the last Parliament, in Westminster. In the context of this statutory instruments Bill that actually went through its Committee Stage unamended on 14 March of this month, with wide-ranging support—it has to be said not on the Government's side, but it did go through unamended, and it obviously has passed its Second Reading as well—it was supported very vocally by Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, who has been a very high-profile adviser to the Government here. Serious people on the UK Government's governance project, chaired by Dominic Grieve, the former Attorney General, but also Baroness Hodge, Lord Neuberger, Jonathan Jones KC, very heavyweight people from the world of politics and constitutional law, proposed this in their report last year.</p>
<p>And the reason why people are proposing it in legislation, rather than through Standing Orders, as you said was suggested by the chief executive of the Hansard Society, is that it is such an important constitutional principle—it has become such an important constitutional principle—because of this lacuna, this vacuum of accountability. That is why people believe it needs to be enshrined in law, yes, put on a statutory basis, rather than simply done through a change in Standing Orders. So, that's why I will be moving this to a vote, because I think it—. You know, we have an opportunity here. I mean, there may be discussions—I'm sure there will be discussions—in the Business Committee, and I would welcome any discussions in any format. But here is an opportunity, with this Bill, for us to make the change, and I therefore, on that basis, will be moving it to a vote now, and we may, following further discussions, want to revisit this at Stage 3.</p>