Amendment moved (this day): 41, in schedule 4, page 66, line 1, leave out from “dumping” to “in” in line 2 —(Peter Dowd.)

This amendment removes the reference to the amount of the subsidy as an upper limit on the anti-dumping amount in the recommendation under paragraph 14.

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:

Amendment 42, in schedule 4, page 66, line 6, leave out from “dumping” to end of line 7.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 41.

Amendment 43, in schedule 4, page 66, line 7, at end insert—

“(3A) The provisions of sub-paragraph (3) are subject to the provisions of sub-paragraphs (3B) and (3C).

(3B) If the TRA finds that the dumping has been fully or partially caused by market distortions affecting the prices of raw materials or other industrial inputs paid by the exporting producers, the estimated anti-dumping amount shall be the margin of dumping as determined in accordance with sub-paragraph (3)(a).

(3C) If the TRA finds that there is an inadequate level of social and environmental protection in the exporting country, the estimated anti-dumping amount shall be the margin of dumping as determined in accordance with sub-paragraph (3)(a).”

This amendment provides for the anti-dumping amount to be the margin of dumping in certain specified circumstances.

Amendment 44, in schedule 4, page 66, line 8, leave out paragraph (4) and insert—

“(4) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (3)(b) the TRA shall, in determining the amount which it is satisfied would be adequate to remove the injury described in that provision, take account of all elements of the material injury being caused to the UK industry, including, but not limited to, the impact of reduced sales volumes, price suppression and curtailment of investment.

(4A) Regulations may make further provision for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4).”

This amendment makes provision on the face of the Bill for the main factors to be considered in determining the amount for the purposes of paragraph 14(3)(b).

Amendment 49, in schedule 4, page 69, line 18, leave out from “dumping” to “in” in line 19.

This amendment removes the reference to the amount of the subsidy as an upper limit on the anti-dumping amount in the recommendation under paragraph 18.

Amendment 50, in schedule 4, page 69, line 22, leave out from “dumping” to end of line 23.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 49.

Amendment 51, in schedule 4, page 69, line 23, at end insert—

“(4A) The provisions of sub-paragraph (4) are subject to the provisions of sub-paragraphs (4B) and (4C).

(4B) If the TRA finds that the dumping has been fully or partially caused by market distortions affecting the prices of raw materials or other industrial inputs paid by the exporting producers, the anti-dumping amount shall be the margin of dumping as determined in accordance with sub-paragraph (4)(a).

(4C) If the TRA finds that there is an inadequate level of social and environmental protection in the exporting country, the estimated anti-dumping amount shall be the margin of dumping as determined in accordance with sub-paragraph (4)(a).”

This amendment provides for the anti-dumping amount to be the margin of dumping in certain specified circumstances.

Amendment 52, in schedule 4, page 69, line 24, leave out paragraph (5) and insert—

“(5) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)(b) the TRA shall, in determining the amount which it is satisfied would be adequate to remove the injury described in that provision, take account of all elements of the material injury being caused to the UK industry, including, but not limited to, the impact of reduced sales volumes, price suppression and curtailment of investment.

(5A) Regulations may make further provision for the purposes of sub-paragraph (5).”

This amendment makes provision on the face of the Bill for the main factors to be considered in determining the amount for the purposes of paragraph 18(4)(b).

I will continue not only to move amendment 41, but to look after the interests of parliamentary democracy and British industry. It is good to see you in the chair again, Mrs Main.

I started to talk about the creation of the mandatory lesser duty rule, which instead results in lower duties that in some cases may not reflect the actual injury. It is labour intensive for the investigating authority and it does not reflect the full level of market distortion. It is also worth pointing out that a small minority of World Trade Organisation members use a mandatory lesser duty rule. The EU is moving to a conditional application because it has seen weaknesses in having a mandatory lesser duty rule. If the UK adopts a mandatory lesser duty rule, our trade remedies will be, in effect, an outlier.

The incorporation of amendments 41, 42, 43, 44, 49 and 50, 51 and 52 into the Bill would ensure that UK trade remedies post-Brexit will closely mirror the evolving EU practice, whereby the lesser duty rule will not be applied in anti-subsidy cases, or in fact in anti-dumping cases, where state-distorted raw material markets have been a factor in enabling or aggravating dumping. Reflected in our amendments is the rule that is practised by the EU but not mandatory under the WTO, which states that

“duties should be calculated to remove either the amount of dumping/subsidy found, or the injury found, whichever is the lower.”

The amendments lay out specific circumstances where the margin of dumping would be applied over a lesser duty rule. These circumstances include where the Trade Remedies Authority finds that the dumping of goods is directly linked to market distortions that affect the price of raw materials, for example in the case of Chinese steel, which is heavily subsidised by the state, and where it finds inadequate levels of social and environmental protection in the exporting country. These specific circumstances mirror the current regulation that the EU follows when determining trade remedies. In a sense, the amendments try to be in the spirit of that.

The Government have offered no evidence of why a mandatory lesser duty rule would be beneficial in comparison with the flexibility to exercise a lesser duty rule on a case-by-case basis. We all know from the evidence session that a representative from the trade unions, and others who work in key sectors pointed out that they had seen no evidence that a mandatory lesser duty rule works, is desirable and that the UK needs it. The amendments go to the heart of trying to deal with that particular issue.

Currently, only nine of the 30 remaining anti-dumping users in the WTO have a mandatory lesser duty rule. They include: Australia, Brazil, India, Israel, New Zealand, Turkey and Thailand. Only three have both the public interest test and a mandatory lesser duty rule, which is what schedule 4 proposes. That includes the EU, Brazil and the Eurasian Customs Union. Detailed evidence given by Cliff Stevenson to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy using the Eurostat update looked at four cases where the lesser duty rule was applied over the dumping rate. In the case of the dumping of cheap aluminium road wheels from China, to which I referred earlier in relation to TUC evidence, the EU adopted the lesser duty rule in 2010, with the injury margin of 22.3%. It is important to look at that in relation to the amendment.

The dumping margin permitted by the WTO was from 23.8% to 67.7%, meaning that the margin adopted was 1.5% less than the lowest estimation of the dumping margin. According to Stevenson’s study, the EU’s adoption of the lesser duty rule has had no impact on the volume of cheap aluminium road wheels imported into the EU from China. We have tabled the amendments because we do not believe that the framework—skeleton or otherwise—addresses the issue.

In the case of ceramics, the EU introduced trade remedies in late 2010 against the import of continuous filament glass fibre products from China. Again, it chose to adopt a lesser duty rule when investigating the injury level. The injury margin was set between 7.3% and 13.8%, while the dumping margin permitted by the WTO is between 9.6% and 29.7%. The rate adopted by the EU is therefore at least 2.3% below the dumping margin. Stevenson’s research shows that the EU’s trade remedies have had little impact on the importation of continuous filament glass fibre from China; since they were adopted, rates have largely remained consistent. Our amendments are a genuine attempt to deal with that problem.

Some have argued that the adoption of the lesser duty rule protects the consumer against being ripped off when the dumping margin is calculated and added to the price of the products imported. However, the claim that prices do not rise significantly because tariffs are imposed at too high a rate was dispelled clearly, compellingly and authoritatively by Gareth Stace, director of UK Steel, in his evidence to us last week:

“I have an example. In the hot rolled coil case recently—hot rolled flat is used for car bodies…the injury margin was 17.5% and the dumping margin was 29%.”

The lesser duty rule was applied by the EU. Gareth Stace continued:

“That is a difference of 11%...If we think of a luxury car that cost €45,000…if the lesser duty rule was not applied in this case, it would increase the value of the €45,000 car by €16.”––[Official Report, Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Public Bill Committee, 23 January 2018; c. 71-72, Q109.]

Disapplying the mandatory lesser duty and giving the Trade Remedies Authority the flexibility to apply a higher dumping margin if necessary will not mean sudden runaway costs being handed on to the consumer—quite frankly, I consider that a myth that needs to be dispelled, preferably as soon as possible. Importantly, higher dumping margins will be considered only when dealing with heavily distorted economies.

The amendments would ensure that the United Kingdom has trade remedies that maintain free and liberalised trade, as well as providing a safety valve to UK producers and manufacturers. That, in turn, will have a positive impact on consumers. We seek not to introduce protectionist measures, but to ensure a level playing field for UK manufacturers. We want to protect the steel industry, for example; my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe has made that point on many occasions and he is absolutely right, as I know his constituents recognise. Our amendments would provide a remedy to the unfair competition that arises when overseas manufacturers do not play by the same fair rules as UK manufacturers. Giving the Trade Remedies Authority the power to establish the correct level of injury is so important.

I exhort hon. Members to consider our amendments carefully, and the Minister to accept them in the spirit in which they are intended.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair again, Mrs Main. In supporting the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle, I, too, draw on the evidence of Gareth Stace, director of UK Steel. He was compelling when he said:

“One of the aims of Brexit was to strip things away, make things more simple and have less people employed working on these things”.

If Brexit is about taking the opportunity to get some sort of bounty that makes things better, herein lies an opportunity for us to do that.

Mr Stace went on to say that

“calculating the dumping margin is a really easy process. It can be done fairly quickly. It does not need a lot of people to do it and does not need a lot of work from industry and the Government. Calculating the injury margin does. It is a bit of a black box—you do not know what is going to come out of it—whereas the dumping margin is very transparent.”––[Official Report, Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Public Bill Committee, 23 January 2018; c. 71-2, Q109-10.]

That is why the EU is going for a conditional application of the lesser duty rule, which is the right direction of travel. It makes it slicker and simpler, and still effective. There is an opportunity for the UK to do the same—or even better.

To look at comparators in terms of timeliness, speed and pace of decision making, systems in the US are put in place within 45 days—we all commend the US as a bastion of free trade, yet that is how it ensures its industry is not disadvantaged in particular ways—whereas until recently in Europe it had been after 9 months. There is an opportunity for the UK to get things slicker and faster than for the EU currently, with one such way being to move towards conditional use of the lesser duty rule, as is implicit in the amendments. I hope that the Government are listening and willing to take this opportunity.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main, and to be in this reassembled Committee, probing and holding the Government to account on this excellent framework Bill. The amendments in the group look to set the parameters around what the TRA can recommend by way of anti-dumping and anti-subsidy measures. I begin by reassuring the Committee that the UK trade remedies system will provide robust protections for UK industries where they are suffering injury because of dumped or subsidised imports, or because of unforeseen surges in imports.

Amendments 41 and 49, and their consequential amendments, would remove the requirement that provisional anti-subsidy measures recommended by the TRA must not exceed the subsidy margin. WTO rules clearly provide that anti-dumping measures cannot exceed the margin of dumping and anti-subsidy measures cannot exceed the amount of subsidy. That is a strict requirement, applying to both provisional and definitive measures, which is reflected in schedule 4. Let me clarify that our policy intention is simply to incorporate those WTO rules and not to provide that the amount of subsidy somehow offsets the dumping margin, or vice versa—I think there may have been some misunderstanding of the Bill’s phrasing.

Schedule 4 relates to both anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations, which are largely identical. That is why the provisions refer to both the margin of dumping and the amount of subsidy. By removing the requirements around the maximum amount of anti-subsidy measures, the amendments would mean that the Bill would not be compatible with WTO rules. I am sure that was not the intention.

Amendments 43 and 51 would restrict the application of the lesser duty rule in cases of raw material distortions and when the exporting country does not respect adequate levels of social and environmental standards. The lesser duty rule achieves our objective of protecting UK industry by ensuring that it can operate on a fair playing field without causing unnecessary injury to UK consumers and downstream industry.

The evidence shows that trade remedy measures are effective and have a lasting impact even with a lesser duty rule in place. Anti-dumping duties on a range of important steel products determined under the lesser duty rule have been very effective in curtailing dumped imports from China. For example, in the year to August 2017, UK imports from China of rebar hot-rolled and cold-rolled flat products were down by more than 90% compared with the year leading up to their respective anti-dumping investigations. There is, therefore, no evidence of a need to remove the lesser duty rule in the case of raw material distortions. Measures are already clearly effective in addressing the injury caused by those practices.

Social and environmental standards are not referred to in the WTO agreements. The EU does not consider that those criteria restrict the lesser duty rule.

Industry feedback has been clear: we should not introduce untested concepts into our trade legislation. The amendment would be exactly that—untested. In practice, any cost advantages enjoyed by an exporting country as a result of low labour or environmental standards or costs will be reflected in its export prices and hence will already be taken into account when calculating the injury margin.

The UK plays an active role in upholding labour and environmental standards around the world through our membership of the International Labour Organisation and by actively promoting human rights. We are exploring all options in the design of future plurilateral and bilateral trade and investment agreements, including with regards to human rights, environmental protections and labour protections. Trade remedies are not an appropriate vehicle for tackling those issues.

Amendments 44 and 52 seek to set out some of the factors that the TRA must take into account when calculating the level of injury that UK industry has suffered. Clearly, the TRA will need to take all relevant factors into account when calculating the injury margin. That is precisely the Government’s policy intention.

As I have said, the Bill provides the framework for the UK’s trade remedies system. It is normal for matters of technical detail to be set out in secondary legislation. The calculation of the injury margin is an example of one such technical detail. Each investigation is different, so the precise method by which the TRA will assess injury will differ on a case-by-case basis.

Given that the TRA will be an independent body, it should have the flexibility to use its expertise to determine the most appropriate methods. We also need to ensure sufficient flexibility to amend the methodology to reflect changes in best practice. We want the UK’s framework to work for UK industry, and we will engage further with stakeholders on the detail of secondary legislation. Tying our hands with this amendment would prevent us from proceeding with those meaningful conversations and thus ensuring that the system is appropriate for our industry and that it is in the best position to protect it.

I will say a bit more about the impact of the lesser duty rule in practice, which was one of the points made by hon. Members. The evidence of the EU’s use of that rule makes it clear that duties determined under it are often high and very effective. In new EU anti-dumping cases since 2011 where duties were based on the injury margin, the average duty imposed was more than 30%. In some cases, it was much higher: heavy plate steel duties were over 70%; stainless steel pipe duties averaged 60%; and in one case, duties exceeded 100%.

Trade remedies measures determined using the lesser duty rule have been effective. Anti-dumping duties on a range of imported steel products under the LDR have been very effective in curtailing dumped imports from China, even at the height of the steel crisis.

An independent evaluation by BKP consultants in 2012 of the use of the lesser duty rule in the EU found that over a 10-year period, EU duties imposed using it had boosted profits for protected companies and were more than enough to remedy the injury suffered. The evaluation recommended that the EU retain the lesser duty rule.

In terms of the broader economy—so it is not missed out—the aim of the lesser duty rule is to tackle the injury caused by dumping and subsidy in an effective way without imposing unnecessary costs on downstream users and producers. It would be a dereliction of duty for the Government not to consider the impact of those actions on the broader economy—it would be bad for jobs and for growth. The reality is that many UK industries are deeply integrated into global supply chains and their competitiveness relies on access to imported materials and components. Removal of the lesser duty rule without any resulting increase in tariffs could put jobs at risk in a range of industries, and would also hit the pockets of consumers.

We heard about solar panels in the oral evidence sessions. The removal of the lesser duty rule could have cost the downstream UK solar sector around £500 million in one year. It would have had a devastating impact on an industry that at the time employed around 35,000 people. The automotive industry purchases many of the products subject to anti-dumping measures. During 2008 to 2010, for example, new duties were imposed on at least seven products bought by the car industry, including aluminium wheels, fibreglass yarns, seamless pipes and fasteners. Removing the lesser duty rule would have raised the cost of around 60 million pairs of shoes—roughly one pair for each person—bought in the UK each year, and cost the consumer around £700 million over the lifetime of the anti-dumping measures. Getting this right in a balanced way and ensuring that we compensate for the injury suffered by producers, but do no more, is the right thing to do, and is why I ask the Committee to reject the amendments.

The hon. Member for Scunthorpe touched on raw materials distortion, so I will speak a little about that. In anti-dumping cases the proposed EU changes would only disapply the lesser duty rule where there are distortions in the raw materials for the products involved, but we do not believe that those changes are necessary. These sorts of distortions can and will be taken into account in the TRA’s independent calculation of the injury to industry, and reflected in the measures that it recommends without the introduction of these changes, which I must add are not part of the EU framework that we are seeking, in most parts, to bring into UK law. Given that, the only effect of removing the lesser duty rule would be to increase the cost to users and downstream industries unnecessarily. We believe the evidence of the EU’s current system shows that trade remedies measures are effective and have a lasting impact, even with the mandatory lesser duty rule in place. I have already given the example of steel, where we saw that 90% reduction.

With that, I will bring my remarks to a close. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the evidence of Gareth Stace from UK Steel. When Mr Stace was asked about this specifically—he was putting over a certain case on behalf of UK Steel, which we all respect—he said that

“I could not tell you that if we did not have the lesser duty rule, we would have seen less dumping in recent years. The lesser duty rule has not meant that new cases did not stop dumping.”––[Official Report, Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Public Bill Committee, 23 January 2018; c. 71, Q109.]

I completely take those points in the spirit of co-operation and conciliation that we are trying to get in the Bill. This is not about one side attacking industry and the other side protecting consumers. It is about the balance. That is the question we have to ask ourselves today: does the Bill give the balance we need? With our amendments, we are trying to say that we believe it will give the balance between producers and consumers. The Minister talked about it being an untested concept, but this whole Bill is an untested concept. This whole experience and journey we are having in relation to Brexit, which we genuinely have to try to make the best of, is the father of untested concepts. This untested concept is just one of the many little ones compared with the totality. We are in a complicated, three-dimensional landscape. That is the nature of the beast and of where we are, and we have to try to make the best of it.

Our amendments are genuinely an attempt to listen to what the witnesses were saying to us. I know we can cherry-pick evidence here and there, but the tone that we got from the witnesses, from those who have subsequently put other evidence in and from our own backgrounds—our knowledge and context of these issues, and the discussions that we have all had outside this room—leads us to believe that the Government, in the round, are perhaps going a step too far. Our amendments are an attempt to bring the balance back. There does not appear to be any significant evidence from what I can see that the producer is in any significant way disadvantaged, because we were clearly told that it was a convoluted and complicated market. I understand where the Minister is coming from, but we have a different perspective.

My final point is that in their evidence many of the witnesses were concerned about the Government not listening to them. They were, in a sense, coming to Parliament as some sort of intermediary, to get Parliament to try to act on their behalf and to be a voice with the Government. That is why they were saying to us that they needed the parliamentary protections. That has been part of our push.

The amendments balance the needs of both producer and industry, and on that basis, while I acknowledge everything the Minister said, I do not think we are able to withdraw them. We have to make that point clearly and unambiguously.

We have not heard any evidence of the lesser duty rule not working in practice. I have been able to rebut any suggestions. The hon. Member for Scunthorpe said that the US imposes measures in 45 days. As everyone on this Committee who is not as busy as he is will know from reading their papers, that is simply not true. The WTO rules prevent the imposition of provisional anti-dumping and anti-subsidy measures before day 60 of the investigation. The US makes a preliminary injury determination in 45 days, but that does not mean the imposition of measures. That was completely incorrect, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman will want to correct the record. The average time that the US takes to impose provisional measures is just under five months, and in most steel cases it takes around six months.

The Minister is absolutely right that, after 45 days, an interim decision is made. That essentially gives confidence to the industry. The amendments are an opportunity for the Government to take measures quicker. At the height of the steel crisis, the lesser duty rule did not help. It took a long time for things to come in. The problem is time and space. The other thing is that the UK will be one of very few countries in the world that apply the lesser duty rule without exception if it goes ahead in this way—out of step and out of place. This is an opportunity to be in the right place.

The hon. Gentleman accepts that measures are not imposed in 45 days. He presented no evidence—I believe there is none—to suggest that the lesser duty rule in any way slows things down, so the slowness of the process in the EU responding to the steel crisis is an entirely separate element. I know he is scrupulously fair and always seeks to be, so he would recognise there is no linkage, although he may have wished there to be one to bolster an argument that has otherwise turned out to have no basis whatsoever. On that basis, I ask for the amendments to be withdrawn.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided:

Ayes 9, Noes 10.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: 43, page 66, line 7 [Schedule 4], at end insert—

“(3A) The provisions of sub-paragraph (3) are subject to the provisions of sub-paragraphs (3B) and (3C).

(3B) If the TRA finds that the dumping has been fully or partially caused by market distortions affecting the prices of raw materials or other industrial inputs paid by the exporting producers, the estimated anti-dumping amount shall be the margin of dumping as determined in accordance with sub-paragraph (3)(a).

(3C) If the TRA finds that there is an inadequate level of social and environmental protection in the exporting country, the estimated anti-dumping amount shall be the margin of dumping as determined in accordance with sub-paragraph (3)(a).”—

This amendment provides for the anti-dumping amount to be the margin of dumping in certain specified circumstances.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided:

Ayes 9, Noes 10.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: 44, page 66, line 8 [Schedule 4], leave out paragraph (4) and insert—

“(4) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (3)(b) the TRA shall, in determining the amount which it is satisfied would be adequate to remove the injury described in that provision, take account of all elements of the material injury being caused to the UK industry, including, but not limited to, the impact of reduced sales volumes, price suppression and curtailment of investment.

(4A) Regulations may make further provision for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4).”—

This amendment makes provision on the face of the Bill for the main factors to be considered in determining the amount for the purposes of paragraph 14(3)(b).

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided:

Ayes 9, Noes 10.

Question accordingly negatived.

I beg to move amendment 45, in schedule 4, page 66, line 24, after “must” insert “within two weeks”.

This amendment prescribes a period within which the Secretary of State must decide whether to accept or reject a TRA recommendation.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 47, in schedule 4, page 68, line 42, leave out from beginning to “to” and insert

“will normally be 5 years unless the TRA considers that a shorter period will suffice”.

This amendment creates a presumption that the specified period will be 5 years.

Amendment 48, in schedule 4, page 69, line 7, leave out from “20(4)(c))” to end of line 8.

This amendment removes the provision for the TRA to recommend an earlier date than the day after the day of publication of the public notice.

Amendment 53, in schedule 4, page 69, line 30, leave out from “that” to end of line 34 and insert

“an anti-dumping amount or a countervailing amount should apply to goods from the day after the date of publication of the public notice under section 13 giving effect to the recommendation.”

This amendment removes the provision for the TRA to recommend an earlier date than the day after the day of publication of the public notice.

Amendment 54, in schedule 4, page 70, line 9, after “must” insert “within two weeks”.

This amendment prescribes a period within which the Secretary of State must decide whether to accept or reject a TRA recommendation.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. I will speak to amendments 45, 47, 48, 53 and 54, relating to time periods. I draw the Committee’s attention in particular to amendment 45, which prescribes a period within which the Secretary of State must decide whether to accept or reject the TRA recommendations—in this case the recommended period is two weeks—and amendment 47, which corrects the presumption that the specified period will be five years. That relates to the amount of time for which special measures regarding TRA recommendations will be enforced.

The general principle of the amendments we seek today is to provide greater clarity and certainty to UK industry about the terms of engagement with the new TRA. As I believe we have placed on the record, this is a framework Bill—it is a piece of legislation where many key details for the trading regime in future are unidentified. Therefore, we remain somewhat vague about what the modus operandi of the TRA will be. Too much is being left to the whims of that authority and the Secretary of State. We believe it is important to set out guidelines at this stage that give greater clarity to the role and scope of TRA activity.

One way to achieve certainty is to bring an easily-observed, enforceable time limit on the activities both of the TRA and the Secretary of State and their relationship with each other. These amendments have been brought forward in consultation with the Manufacturing Trade Remedies Alliance, which has significant insight into what UK industry needs from future trade defence policy.

Amendments 45 and 54 would mandate the Secretary of State to make a decision on TRA recommendations within two weeks. As the MTRA highlights, although there is provision in the Bill for a deadline to be brought on the TRA through secondary legislation at various points in an investigation, there are none specified for the Secretary of State. In theory, that would allow decisions to be delayed indefinitely. Let us imagine a situation in which the UK is led by such an indecisive Government that members of the Cabinet could not agree with each other on our future trading relationships—that would be a problem. The scenario is hard to envisage, but we should surely safeguard against it.

In today’s globalised economy, markets and events can move much faster than we would ever have anticipated. In a short time, key UK markets could suffer serious injury if appropriate remedial action were not taken quickly. In fairness to Ministers, we have heard that speed of decision-making is something they are looking to achieve. This is surely the rationale behind the Government’s decision to stipulate deadlines on TRA investigations, to prevent time lags occurring which could bring that about. In the Opposition’s view, it seems ineffective to include these requirements but not mirror them for the Secretary of State in accepting the recommendations of TRA investigations. That raises a concern that there could be an option simply to kick the can down the road when a politically difficult decision presents itself. We believe that the MTRA recommendation of a two-week deadline in which the Secretary of State must reach a decision is reasonable and would protect against such abuses.

In a similar vein, the Bill specifies a maximum five-year period but no minimum with regard to the time considered necessary for duties to be imposed, where that forms part of the TRA’s recommendations. It merely states that duties should be imposed for such a period as the TRA considers necessary. However, as the MTRA points out, it is considered normal practice globally for anti-dumping and anti-subsidy measures to last for a minimum of five years, including within key partner markets in the EU and the US. The alliance suggests, therefore, that the default duration of duties should be five years, starting from the date of definitive measures. The Opposition agree.

It is vital to add certainty where we can for UK industry and that we align with our global trading partners to gain consensus and be as consistent as possible on the universally accepted World Trade Organisation principles. I therefore call on the Committee to support the amendments.

Three groups of amendments need a response. I will start with amendments 45 and 54, which seek to impose a two-week time limit on the Secretary of State’s decision to accept or reject the TRA recommendation. I will then turn to amendment 47, which seeks to create a presumption of five years as the normal, rather than the maximum, duration of definitive measures. Finally, I will address amendments 48 and 53, which seek to ensure that the duration of definitive measures is not affected by the length of any provisional measures that might have been applied against the same imports.

On amendments 45 and 54, on receipt of the TRA recommendation, it is the responsibility of the Secretary of State to respond in a timely manner, while ensuring that the public interest aspect of their role is given due weight. We fully recognise that a swift response is crucial to UK industry, as the hon. Gentleman said, so that the injury being caused by unfair trade practices can be halted. However, in some cases there will inevitably be difficult matters that the Secretary of State will need to reflect on. Although we expect that such matters will be rare, it is important that he has full opportunity thoroughly to consider the issues in making his decision. That might lengthen the process, but it is important to do the job well rather than quickly. To place an arbitrary two–week time limit on the Secretary of State is, therefore, not appropriate. Even though that duration might be sufficient in most cases, the legislation must provide flexibility for cases in which complex considerations must be made in the public interest.

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, once the investigation has been concluded and measures have been proposed by the TRA, the pressure on the Secretary of State quickly to come forward with the adoption of the measures to protect British industry will be great. I perhaps lack the hon. Gentleman’s imagination, but I find it hard to imagine a situation in which the pressure on the Secretary of State to get on with it would not be much greater than a pressure to delay and put it into the long grass, as the hon. Gentleman said. I think we can be confident that any Secretary of State under any Government would wish to make the decision as quickly as reasonably possible.

For those reasons, I do not agree with an arbitrary two-week limit. I understand why the hon. Gentleman has tabled the amendment and I hope it is a probing one. I understand what lies behind it, but I hope I have reassured him.

On amendment 47, it is important to note that the WTO agreements set out that measures may remain in force for up to five years. They do not provide that five years is the default. In fact, they specifically set out that measures should remain in force only for as long as, and to the extent, necessary to counteract the dumping or subsidisation that is causing injury. The TRA analysis may suggest that a period shorter than five years will be sufficient to counteract injury, and in such cases the TRA should set an appropriate duration accordingly.

On request, the TRA will initiate an expiry review before the termination of any measures, provided that UK industry can demonstrate that injury would continue or recur if the measures were to expire. If the review finds that continued application of measures is required to maintain sufficient protection for UK industry, the measures will be continued. I assure the hon. Gentleman that industry is adequately protected without the need for the amendment and I ask him to consider withdrawing it.

Finally, on amendments 48 and 53, I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concerns, but I have to reassure him that that which he fears is the not the intention of the provisions. The WTO agreements allow in certain circumstances for trade remedies to be applied from a date prior to the date of the application of definitive measures. The purpose of the provisions is to allow us to reflect that in secondary legislation, not to shorten the duration of definitive measures. We are not seeking to shorten the duration of definitive measures, but are seeking to allow trade remedies to be applied from a date prior to the date of those measures.

The unintended consequence of the Opposition amendments would be to prevent the TRA from collecting duties for a period before the date of the section 13 notice, even though this is permissible under the WTO agreements in limited circumstances. I entirely understand why the hon. Gentleman tabled the amendment and what he was seeking to probe. I hope my explanation has been sufficient to make him see that that which he desires will not be delivered by the amendments.

We believe that this is a necessary provision. We have been clear that we want to incorporate all of the protections permitted under WTO rules into the UK’s trade remedies framework. Removing the ability to do that could be detrimental to the protections available to UK industry. It is on that basis that I ask him to consider withdrawing the amendment.

I express the Scottish National party’s support for the Opposition amendments. It is sensible that we are asking the Secretary of State to make a decision within a relatively short time period because, as has been stated, we do not want that to be dragged out for any significant length of time. It is reasonable that, after a significant investigation has taken place—and the TRA’s investigations will be significant—the Minister will quickly review the evidence presented and make a decision in the shortest possible time.

On amendment 47 and the five-year period, I have the Department for International Trade call for evidence on the current EU trade remedy measures. I can see possibly one that is in place for less than five years. In fact, many have been place for over a decade because they have been renewed. It is very unusual in that document, which lists all the trade remedy measures currently in place, for any of them to have a review date of less than five years. It is completely reasonable that the Opposition are asking for the starting period default to be five years, and for the TRA to decide on a lesser period in compelling circumstances. Given the number of these measures that have been extended and how few of them have fallen at the five year period, I suggest that five years is likely to be a reasonably short period for trade remedies to be in place, and that it is sensible for them to extended as a result.

We are talking about the trade remedies body doing substantive investigations and coming up with a huge amount of evidence. Asking it to do so on more than a five-yearly basis would probably be adding to their workload unnecessarily. The Opposition’s suggestion is incredibly sensible in that regard. The presumption should be five years, and the TRA should make decisions for it to be less if it believes that that would be appropriate.

I appreciate the Minister’s response but it is our intention to move these amendments to the vote.

In respect of amendment 45, the Minister has already talked about the political pressure that has almost certainly been brought in the event of the TRA making a determination. However, it is also true that there are many examples we could go through of Governments resisting such political pressure. We should bear in mind that, in our discussions earlier, the Government effectively brought back a new constitutional procedure in order to stress the need for speed of announcements. Therefore, it does not seem consistent this afternoon to say that there is very little flexibility offered by the need for speedy resolution of cases.

Amendment 47 offers flexibility where five years would not be appropriate, but as the hon. Member for Aberdeen North just said, given the standard length of time these measures tend to be in place, this is—as industry has told us—a fairly modest measure, making it consistent with industry practice. We will press the amendment to a vote, Mrs Main.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided:

Ayes 9, Noes 10.

Question accordingly negatived.

I beg to move amendment 46, in schedule 4, page 67, line 6, at end insert—

‘(6A) For the purposes of this Schedule, references to the “public interest” are to be construed as relating to the security of the United Kingdom and its citizens.”

This amendment provides a definition of public interest for the purposes of Schedule 4.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 60, in schedule 4, page 79, line 15, at end insert—

‘(2A) References in this Schedule to the “public interest” are to be construed in accordance with paragraph 15(6A).”.”

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 46.

Amendment 71, in schedule 5, page 85, line 39, at end insert—

‘(5A) For the purposes of this Schedule, references to the “public interest” are to be construed as relating to the security of the United Kingdom and its citizens.”

This amendment provides a definition of public interest for the purposes of Schedule 5.

Amendment 77, in schedule 5, page 97, line 38, at end insert—

‘(2A) References in this Schedule to the “public interest” are to be construed in accordance with paragraph 13(6A).”.”

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 71.

The amendment is about the public interest and I think the public have a particular interest here. The amendments to schedules 4 and 5 would define the public interest as referring strictly to the national security of the United Kingdom and its citizens. As drafted, the measures in schedules 4 and 5 would create a public interest test that would allow the Secretary of State to veto any recommendations on the adoption of trade remedies from the Trade Remedies Authority on public interest grounds.

To be clear, the WTO does not require the UK to adopt a public interest test. In fact this would put the UK in an extreme minority, as only other multi-national members of the WTO, such as the EU, and Brazil currently operate a public interest test. If we consider countries operating both a public interest test and a mandatory lesser duty rule, that puts the UK in an even smaller and pretty selective group. All the countries that currently have a form of public interest also clearly define what the public interest actually is. We do not appear to do that.

Several witnesses who gave evidence last Tuesday pointed out that the establishment of a public interest test as outlined in schedules 4 and 5 is overkill at best, and overreach at worst. The representatives of the UK ceramics, steel and chemicals industries were divided on the number of tests the Government have set out in schedules 4 and 5 and which have to be met before trade remedies can be issued. The director of UK Steel counted as many as six in the current provisions, with five economic tests and one public interest test. That is why we want to narrow the focus, as the Government do not appear to have done so, although they might say that they will.

Although there is clearly a case for assessing the economic impact of trade remedies on key sectors of the economy and certain exports, the establishment of an undefined public interest test is more worrying. Currently, schedules 4 and 5 would give the Secretary of State for Trade carte blanche to define what is and is not in the public interest. The lack of a definition means that the public interest is largely subjective. It puts the Secretary of State in a similar position to his opposite number in Australia, where the Trade Minister, according to a report from the Department for International Trade, has “unfettered discretion” to choose not to impose measures. Using those vague new powers, could not the Secretary of State argue that flooding UK markets with cheap chlorinated chicken from the US is in the public interest, or that cheap aluminium wheels from China would lower the cost of cars and therefore also be in the public interest?

It is not only the Opposition who are concerned about the Government’s lack of clarity about what might be considered to be in the public interest. In her evidence to the Committee, Dr Cohen, chief executive of the British Ceramic Confederation, expressed her alarm at the prospect that the test could be used to justify a future free trade agreement with China based on levels of potential inward investment. It appears that an undefined test could lead quickly to a scenario in which the public interest is not only conflated with the interests of consumers, but wholly dependent on the personal perceptions and considerations of whoever holds office in the Department for International Trade. Our amendment therefore tries to define public interest more tightly.

The EU’s anti-dumping regulation defines the public interest as being

“based on an appreciation of all the various interests taken as a whole, including the interests of the domestic industry and users and consumers”.

We think that definition is too broad and open to interpretation. Amendment 46 and the consequential amendments would instead require the Government to adopt a definition of public interest for the purposes of schedules 4 and 5 that relates specifically to national security. Under such a definition, the Secretary of State’s power to veto TRA trade remedy recommendations using a public interest test would be constrained to situations involving harm to national security.

The Opposition consider that in an extreme case, such as the United Kingdom going to war, national security considerations would supersede and far outweigh the arguments for trade remedies. Any discussion of national security would have to involve other Cabinet members, including the Defence Secretary, the Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister. A more consensual approach would have to be reached, either by the Cabinet or by a Cabinet Sub-Committee, to establish whether the suggested remedies would harm national security interests.

Closely restricting the public interest test to issues of national security arguably leaves a broad definition, which some argue the Government could seize on and push to the very limit—for example, the Secretary of State could reject trade remedies on Chinese steel under the guise of national security by claiming that cheap steel from China is needed for energy security and the next generation of nuclear power plants—but I believe that the tight definition outlined in our amendments would limit that ability. Furthermore, I suspect that few Cabinet colleagues would support such a crude interpretation of national security, as it could interfere with their briefs and would only raise further questions.

An undefined public interest test would give the Secretary of State vast powers that could easily lead to abuse. Our amendments therefore seek to define “public interest” sensibly to constrain those powers, to open a wider discussion between the Secretary of State and other Cabinet members, and to limit use of the public interest veto to times of national emergency. However, we are not just pushing on regardless. If the Minister wishes to elaborate on what “public interest” could mean—the extent of it, who decides whether to invoke it, the process and steps for arriving at such a decision, and the checks and balances in place—we will be more than happy to listen.

As the hon. Member for Bootle has explained so fluently, his amendments would make it clear that the Secretary of State could use public interest grounds to reject the TRA’s recommendations for the imposition of duties only in limited circumstances, namely those in which national security was deemed to be at risk.

It may help hon. Members if I briefly run through the interaction of checks and balances in the trade remedies system. As we have discussed, the TRA is required to conduct an economic interest test when deciding whether to recommend the imposition of measures. There is a presumption in favour of the imposition of duties in respect of anti-dumping and anti-subsidy measures. However, it is not for the TRA to take into account wider public interest considerations such as matters of national security, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, nor to determine whether the imposition of duties would run counter to wider Government policy.

When the Secretary of State receives the TRA’s recommendations, he will satisfy himself that the TRA has properly weighted the individual elements of the EIT and that imposing duties is in the public interest. Only where there is a strong argument against following the TRA’s recommendations will the Secretary of State reject putting measures in place. In the exceptional case where he does, he will be required to explain his decision to Parliament.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned Gareth Stace of UK Steel and his evidence. It is worth putting on the record that when discussing a public interest test, he said

“you need a public interest test at the end, because there may be those extraordinary circumstances where it is or is not in the public interest to apply or not apply tariffs.”––[Official Report, Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Public Bill Committee, 23 January 2018; c. 73, Q111.]

So in fact, UK Steel gave evidence supporting public interest tests.

Other Governments, including those of the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and the EU take public interest into account when deciding whether to impose measures, so we are not acting out of step with other countries. I dispute what the hon. Gentleman said.

Does the Minister at least acknowledge that, notwithstanding what he has said, those countries have a more clearly defined test? Whether he agrees with it or not, their public interest test is a bit tighter and clearer. Ours appears to be rather loose, to say the least.

It is not really a test. It is a final common-sense check that the measures will not run against our national security interests or wider Government policy, as the hon. Gentleman set out—all the pressures that we discussed in a previous debate. The pressure will be on the Secretary of State. Industry will call for the inquiry and participate in the TRA’s investigation, then the TRA will come out and say that the economic interest test and the market share threshold have been passed and that it has decided that we need to impose these measures. After that, the Secretary of State will give it a sense check, and in extraordinary circumstances might say no.

In his recent article for UK Trade Forum, George Peretz QC said that such decisions are

“best made by politicians who can, and will have to, defend those decisions in the political arena.”

It is right that there is a role for Ministers to take those public interest considerations into account and intervene if imposing measures is not in the UK’s wider interest. It is also right that they are accountable to Parliament if they do so. The system that we have proposed, whereby an independent body carries out the investigation and makes recommendations, but Ministers ultimately have responsibility for acting in the country’s best interest, is the right one. I hope hon. Members agree and that the hon. Gentleman will agree to withdraw the amendment.

As I said earlier, when we are talking about very important matters, we are prepared not to push amendments to a vote in the spirit of co-operation and conciliation. This is one of those occasions, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 47, in schedule 4, page 68, line 42, leave out from beginning to “to” and insert

“will normally be 5 years unless the TRA considers that a shorter period will suffice”.—(Jonathan Reynolds.)

This amendment creates a presumption that the specified period will be 5 years.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided:

Ayes 9, Noes 10.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: 48, in schedule 4, page 69, line 7, leave out from “20(4)(c))” to end of line 8.—(Jonathan Reynolds.)

This amendment removes the provision for the TRA to recommend an earlier date than the day after the day of publication of the public notice.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided:

Ayes 9, Noes 10.

Question accordingly negatived.

I beg to move amendment 55, in schedule 4, page 70, line 39, at end insert—

“(2A) Reviews under this paragraph shall only be initiated after a period of at least 12 months has elapsed since the measures subject to that review were implemented in accordance with paragraph 20(4), except that a review requested by a new supplier to the United Kingdom of the level of duties applicable to that new supplier may be initiated earlier.”

This amendment provides for a general minimum period of 12 months prior to initiation of a review except in prescribed circumstances.

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 56, in schedule 4, page 71, line 33, at end insert—

“(4A) All measures implemented in accordance with paragraph 20(4) will continue to be applied during the conduct of any review under this paragraph into those measures.”

This amendment provides for measures to remain in place while a review is conducted of them.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair once again, Mrs Main.

Like many of the Opposition’s amendments, amendments 55 and 56 try to improve the legal certainty in the Bill. They would ensure that reviews could not normally be opened into measures that were less than one year old, in line with EU practice, and that duties remained in place while reviews were conducted. With no restriction on the time period before which reviews can be initiated, the UK again appears to be ploughing its own furrow and going against the international direction of travel. I note from much of the previous debate and the comments from the hon. Member for Aberdeen North, who rightly indicated that the average cycle for this kind of remedy is five years, that it is a long-term cycle, and without the expectation of review before the remedy having been in place for one year.

Since reviews can be initiated after an interested party asks for one, WTO rules require a reasonable time to have elapsed since the imposition of definitive measures, and that has almost always, from what I can see, been interpreted as being at least one year. The only exception seems to be the US, where the standard review period is one year, but that is apparently unusual. In the EU, at least a year must have passed.

The problem with earlier reviews is that they could be administratively costly, after having put a remedy into action, and that they would reduce the predictability of the trade remedies regime. The latter is surely essential for the long-term health of British manufacturing, which needs to know that the business environment will not change radically in the very short term. With uncertainty appearing to be one of the factors underlying the current low levels of private sector investment in the UK, we surely must ensure that trade remedies are proportionate and do not make our British firms less secure than if they were based in other industrialised countries.

The hon. Lady makes a compelling case and I want to reassure her that Scottish National party Members will support the Labour party in the incredibly sensible move it looks to make, particularly with amendment 55.

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the SNP’s support. The amendments focus on trying to provide the certainty that the Bill lacks but which is present in other trade remedies systems. Will the Minister indicate whether the Government have considered inserting such a provision in the Bill, in line with international practice? If not, will he say why not, given that no other country seems routinely to allow a review before a year has passed?

Amendment 55 seeks to provide a timeline in relation to reviews of continuing application of an anti-dumping amount or countervailing duty amount. Amendment 56 asks that definitive anti-dumping and countervailing duties will continue to be applied during the investigation process of any review.

On amendment 55, let me start by explaining that there are a number of different types of reviews of definitive anti-dumping and countervailing duties, which apply in different circumstances—for example, to reflect the appearance of a new exporter, to address evidence that measures are being circumvented, or to review measures that are due to expire, to determine whether it is necessary to extend them. Reviews ensure that measures can be changed where and when appropriate. I recognise the desire for clarity regarding timelines in the review’s framework, but as demonstrated by the WTO agreements and EU rules, there is no uniform timeline that is appropriate for all review types.

The amendment is unnecessary, as it appears to apply to all review types, irrespective of the lack of uniform timelines currently applicable under the EU system. For example, it would not be beneficial to UK industry if it is required to wait 12 months before a circumvention review may be carried out. On amendment 56, paragraph 21(4)(b) already allows us to provide in secondary legislation that measures may be extended beyond five years where a review is being undertaken. However, an extension is not appropriate in every type of review—for example, the WTO specifically sets out that duties may not be applied during a new exporter review. Therefore it is more appropriate for this to be provided for in secondary legislation. The development of the review’s framework is still ongoing. It is intended that there will be targeted stakeholder engagement across the UK industry to discuss this issue in more detail, prior to setting out the details of the various review processes in secondary legislation. It is a complicated area, as my explanation of the unintended impact of these amendments shows. I therefore ask the hon. Member to withdraw these amendments.

I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. My concern is that the fact that that period is not set within the Bill could lead to a situation where there is no certainty for producers about the length of time during which a remedy would remain in place. I take on board the Minister’s comments. I hoped that they would reduce some of those concerns at least, and I hope that he will accept the concerns we have been suggesting, given that, for certain types of review, other regimes have at least a year’s threshold before decisions can be reconsidered. I am sure the Minister understands that, without having such a set period, we have these concerns. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move amendment 57, in schedule 4, page 74, line 1, leave out “request” and insert “consider a request for”.

This amendment provides for the TRA to seek to apply price undertakings in response to a request to do so.

This is a tidying-up amendment. It provides for the TRA to seek to apply price undertakings in response to a request to do so. Our amendment seeks to clarify the precise role of the TRA within the process of application of undertakings. I should mention that this process can be complex and some stakeholders have understandably drawn attention to the problems of ensuring compliance with price undertakings. However, that is not exactly the focus of the amendment. Rather, we are concerned that the Bill seems to suggest that the TRA would be proffering different alternative undertakings.

International practice indicates that authorities arbitrate the different options for undertakings that are presented not by the authorities themselves, but by exporters. That is in line with WTO practice. Article VI of the general agreement on tariffs and trade 1994 and the agreement on the implementation of article VI—the “anti-dumping agreement” that we have referred to in Committee—explicitly authorise the imposition of anti-dumping measures by WTO members, as we know. Article 8 of the anti-dumping agreement includes the set of rules governing undertakings. It refers to the offering and acceptance of undertakings from any exporter—not by authorities themselves—to revise their prices or cease exports at dumped prices. The action is from the exporter, not from the authority.

However, the language in schedule 4 gives the active role to the TRA, referring to regulations giving the authority the ability to request an undertaking. From what I can see, this contradicts the language earlier in part 5 of the schedule that rightly refers to overseas exporters and relevant foreign Governments rather than the TRA offering undertakings. Our amendment would offer a helpful clarification about the role of the TRA, and help to prevent confusion. I hope the Minister will take this in the constructive way in which it is intended.

The amendment would mean that the use of undertakings would rely solely on an undertaking being offered by an exporter or a foreign authority, and would deny the TRA the ability to prompt the offering of an undertaking, as the hon. Lady set out in her speech. Our aim is to provide the TRA with the full suite of tools available under the WTO agreements. We must ensure that the TRA is equipped to deal with every possible future scenario.

The Government understand industry’s concern that it is more common practice—the hon. Lady rightly laid this out and is right to probe—for a foreign authority or an exporter to offer an undertaking than to be prompted into giving one by request. None the less, this power to request undertakings is not unusual, as it is set out in a WTO agreement, and adopted in EU regulations. This power is required to cater for certain situations that may arise. For example, the TRA may need to request an undertaking following a review where the level of undertaking needs to be varied, or where the UK is committed to seeking constructive remedies with a trading partner as part of a trade agreement. Therefore, removing this power would serve to undermine the TRA and the discharge of its functions, which I know is the exact opposite of what the hon. Lady would wish.

We would expect that the TRA will exercise this power only where necessary, which we envisage to be rarely. The secondary legislation under this power will outline these circumstances, and we will engage with stakeholders as we develop proposals going further. I hope that, by doing so, we will be able to answer any remaining concerns the hon. Lady has.

It is also worth stating that, as per the WTO agreements, following a request from the TRA, there will be no obligation for an exporter or a foreign authority to enter into such an undertaking that will further limit the power. Once a request has been made, and if an undertaking is subsequently offered, the TRA will still need to conduct an assessment of the undertaking and its terms and conditions to decide whether accepting it would be appropriate and whether it would be in the UK’s economic interest. The fact that the TRA requested the undertaking in the first place will not predetermine this assessment in any way. For these reasons, I ask the hon. Lady to consider withdrawing the amendment.

I beg to ask leave that the amendment be withdrawn.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the schedule be the Fourth schedule to the Bill.

With this we will consider:

New clause 15—Review of transitional measures—

“(1) Within three months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State shall undertake a review of the advantages and disadvantages of making provision under section 51(1) to secure that transitional measures are applicable on the same day that the tariff provided for in section 8 first has effect.

(2) For the purposes of this section, “transitional measures” are those anti-dumping duties, or anti-subsidy duties, or undertakings, as the case may be, that were applicable in the European Union on the day preceding the day referred to in sub-paragraph (1) to which subsection (3) does not apply.

(3) This subsection applies to any goods in respect of which the TRA has made a recommendation, prior to the date referred to in subsection (2), that injury to a UK industry in the goods

(4) The Secretary of State shall, as soon as reasonably practicable after the completion of the review under this section, lay a report of the review before the House of Commons.”

This new clause provides for a review of the case for the continued effect of EU trade remedies after introduction of the new standard import tariff and pending full implementation of the new arrangements under Schedule 4.

We have had a useful and interesting discussion about many of the elements in schedule 4. As I have said, the trade remedy system that we operate when we leave the EU will be fully compliant with our WTO obligations. The WTO agreements on anti-dumping, subsidy and countervailing measures set out the requirements that all members must meet to be able to impose either anti-dumping or countervailing measures. This schedule enshrines the key principles of both agreements into UK law. Further detail will be set out in secondary legislation.

I have already explained that this will be technical in nature. Indeed, amendment 25 is a good indication of the level, and amount of detail, that will need to be included, and it would not be appropriate for this to be in the Bill.

Schedule 4, therefore, provides power to the Secretary of State to set out in secondary legislation detailed provisions regarding how to establish dumping, subsidisation, injury and how to calculate those. The schedule includes technical provisions regarding the thresholds that must be met before the TRA may initiate an investigation, including the WTO criteria of what constitutes negligible and minimal. The Secretary of State can also set out detailed provisions about the conduct of investigations, including the information that is required, and of oral hearings; about the different types of reviews the TRA may undertake and their conduct and potential outcomes; about undertakings; about the suspension of measures where market conditions have temporarily changed; and about when and how particular measures may be reviewed and appealed. They are technical, as I said.

It is necessary to set all that out in secondary legislation so that the system is flexible enough to adapt should WTO case law or international best practice move on. I reassure hon. Members that the system will be fully WTO compliant. We will continue to engage with stakeholders as it is developed.

The Government are committed to ensuring continuity for UK industry when we leave the EU, which includes ensuring that UK industry is not exposed to injury from known unfair trade practices. That is why, when the UK begins to operate its independent trade remedies framework, we will effectively maintain the existing trade remedies measures that matter to UK industry and terminate only those that are not relevant.

New clause 15 seeks a review of transitioning existing EU measures. It is unclear whether the clause asks for the Trade Remedies Authority to review each transition measure, or whether it seeks to review the Government’s policy approach. If the aim is for the Trade Remedies Authority to determine which measures should be maintained and to review the maintained measures, we intend those decisions to be determined through the call for evidence launched on 28 November 2017. That call for evidence seeks to capture information from UK producers who benefit from existing EU trade remedies measures.

Am I right that the Minister is essentially saying that current trade remedies will stay in place unless there is a very strong reason for them not to?

The hon. Gentleman is precisely right. As ever, he represents the steel interests in his constituency with assiduity, hard work and focus. He is right to say that we must ensure that measures in place to protect British industry continue smoothly after we depart the EU. That is exactly what the Government intend.

The Trade Remedies Authority will have the important role of reviewing the maintained measures so that they reflect the UK domestic market. The precise timing of reviews being carried out will depend on the terms of any agreement with the European Commission about an implementation period and on the outcome of the call for evidence, which will confirm the number and type of measures that will be maintained.

If the aim is to look again at the general policy to transition the existing EU measures that matter to the UK, that does not need to be revisited. If we take no action to maintain those measures when we leave the EU, they will no longer apply to products arriving into the UK with immediate effect. That would leave important UK industries, including the steel, ceramics and chemicals sectors, vulnerable to dumped and subsidised imports. A review of the policy approach would create uncertainty for UK industry as to whether measures will be maintained. Stakeholders have been clear that it is vital to transition existing measures to maintain protection against injury from dumping.

To return to schedule 4, having an effective trade remedies system in place is crucial to protect our industries from unfair trading practices that cause injury. It is vital to the UK’s interests that the system is transparent, balanced, impartial, efficient and works for the UK as a whole. The system proposed by this schedule and the secondary legislation that will be made under it achieves that, and is the best way to protect UK industries when we are outside the EU. I will respond to new clause 15 when I have heard the arguments made for it by hon. Members.

I started to listen to the Minister out of a morbid sense of curiosity, but he became far more plausible as time went on. Do I smell a rat? No, I do not at the moment, but there is some concern. The new clause provides for a review of the case for the continued effect on the UK of EU trade remedies after the introduction of the new standard import tariff, and pending full implementation of the new arrangements under schedule 4. It seeks a review of the case for continued use of EU trade remedies between the UK’s exit from the EU and its negotiation of a new relationship.

I am conscious of the statements made yesterday by Michel Barnier. I do not want to poke into that issue—I think hon. Members will be grateful for that olive branch—but there are wider concerns about which EU regulations and rules the UK will follow in the transition period. Will we continue to be a member of the EU in all but name, or will Ministers seek to pick and choose? I will have to look at Hansard, but I got the impression from the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe that, unless there are egregious breaches, we will remain for all intents and purposes virtually as we are, which is quite helpful.

Naturally, the outstanding questions about transitional measures are causing great confusion and concern among UK manufacturers currently protected by EU trade remedies. I take some comfort from the Minister’s reassurances, but in evidence to the Committee last week, UK Steel, the British Ceramic Confederation and the Chemical Industries Association were all less than convinced about the Government’s intentions. They all made the case that the trade remedies outlined in schedules 4 and 5 are not only weaker than those currently in place in the EU, but in some instances worse than those used by other WTO countries. It will be important to tease that out a little more in due course.

New clause 15 would require the Government to undertake a review of the advantages and disadvantages of the new trade remedies outlined in schedules 4 and 5. The reality is that such a review may relate to issues of policy or of practice. I am quite flexible about that, as I am sure the Government are—let us have a look at both, if need be, on a case-by-case basis.

Outlining the potential benefits to UK manufacturers of continuing to use EU trade remedies throughout the transition is also crucial. The new clause should not be too controversial, because if the new trade remedies are as robust and thorough as the Minister suggests, a review will show that. However, if the review showed the new trade remedies to be inferior to the current EU measures, that would not be good news. It would clearly show that the Government were content with laxer trade remedies and were not on the side of UK manufacturers, which are some of the largest employers in the country.

I have a number of questions for the Minister about transitional measures. Can he offer assurances to UK manufacturers that the Government will honour the trade remedies currently in place for the UK? He appears to have indicated that—I think that is what he said—but I do not want to put words in his mouth, so I would like to tease that out a little more. Will the Government consider extending the current trade remedies where necessary?

Does the Minister accept that the trade remedies framework outlined in the Bill may not be up and running by the time Britain leaves the European Union? How confident is he that UK manufacturing will be sufficiently protected from state-sponsored dumping throughout the transition period? Have the Government set a date for members of the Trade Remedies Authority to be selected and a date for the TRA to be fully functional? I think the Bill implies that UK trade remedies will apply during the transition period, but how does that fit with the tone of the statement made by Mr Barnier?

It is clear that the Government have huge questions to answer about the effectiveness of the trade remedies in the Bill, and about how they will work throughout the transition period. The devil is in the detail, so I hope that the Government have listened carefully and will try to answer our concerns and those of many people out there.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 4 accordingly agreed to.

Schedule 5