Duties of Customs

Anneliese Dodds Excerpts

Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Monday 20th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am grateful to the Minister for his introductory remarks, but I have to say that both they and the resolutions leave four important problems unresolved. Many Members have spoken to those problems today. I will speak as telegraphically as I can about them, and speak to amendments (e) and (f).

First, as many colleagues have said, the resolutions fail to ensure that the Government’s approach on customs is properly democratically accountable. The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) said the Government proposals were a guddle, and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones) spoke eloquently about their incoherence, but I think there is an element of coherence, as stated clearly by my hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) and for Bootle (Peter Dowd), who highlighted the presence of the paragraph that, sadly, we see in the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, elements of the Finance Bill and the Trade Bill. The resolutions would give Ministers the ability to vary customs duties without what we regard as proper parliamentary scrutiny, and we cannot stand by and allow that as a House that is accountable to our constituents, who could suffer greatly from that sort of action.

Secondly, the Minister would say only that we need some kind of customs association during the transition period. It is unfathomable to Opposition Members why the Government are refusing to rule in continuing customs union membership, even during a transition period, when that is what business has so clearly demanded.

Thirdly, we had very little enlightenment about the capacity of HMRC and the concrete actions the Government will take to deal with the many challenges my hon. Friends expressed so very eloquently. My hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) and for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) expressed concerns about the additional administrative burdens that will apply, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty). It has been suggested that the number of customs declarations could shoot up by 100%, and that is in the context of HMRC’s headcount being reduced by over a sixth since 2010. Of course, we did not have the clarification we needed about the scope and functions of the new trade remedies authority, despite my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) pushing hard on the issue.

Fourthly, we have had much discussion about the dangers of a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. I can say very strongly that we on the Labour Benches do not just want an aspiration to avoid such a border, we need a cast-iron assurance and we do not have it yet from the Government.

I understand, and indeed agree, with many of the sentiments underlying amendments (e) and (f), especially as they were articulated by my hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh South and for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie). It is absolutely right to highlight, as they did, the recklessness of the Government in ruling out membership of the customs union as part of our future relationship with the EU. I am concerned, however, about how the amendments would interact with WTO rules, not least because of the Government’s disturbing unwillingness to rule out leaving the EU without a deal. The amendments would apply regardless of the future customs model. The scope is not restricted, as currently drafted. We on the Labour Benches have repeatedly indicated why leaving the EU without a deal would be a huge blow to British businesses and British jobs, yet the Government have failed to rule out this eventuality and their existing negotiating approach does not inspire confidence—quite the opposite.

[Angela Smith]

May I read my hon. Friend’s comments as a statement that the Labour Front Bench does support staying in the customs union, but on technicalities will not support the amendment? Do Labour Front Benchers support staying in the customs union?

--- Later in debate ---

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her helpful intervention. As she will know, the Labour position is that we want to leave all possibilities open. We think that is an appropriate approach to take. [Interruption.] I see Government Members laughing at that. We are in a negotiation where it is surely absolutely essential that we put Britain’s interest first and that means not taking options off the table. Sadly, the Government did that very early on and caused an enormous amount of bad will from our other EU partners, which we regret enormously. They should not have done that.

If the worst does happen and the Government lead us—through their lack of application and, frankly, the internecine squabbles on the Government Benches—to leave the EU without a trade deal, the rules of the WTO leave us no option but to trade with our European partners on the same basis as we trade with all countries with which we have no free trade agreement. This is the most favoured nation principle at the heart of the WTO: that there must be no arbitrary discrimination between trading partners of a similar developmental status, unless those countries have negotiated a free trade agreement that meets the WTO’s definitional requirements.

If we were to adopt amendments that allow the UK Government to set customs duties on imports and exports from every other country in the world but not our European neighbours, in the case of a chaotic no-deal situation we would be faced with two unpalatable options. First, we could disregard the most favoured nation rule, in which case we would be exposed to virtually limitless potential dispute challenges from all other WTO members. The second option is abiding by the most favoured nation rule, but that would mean having to trade with all other countries on the same basis as we traded with the EU—namely, as the amendments would have it, without tariffs or quotas. Some Conservative Members and groups, such as the so-called Economists for Free Trade, would wish for such an outcome—a unilateral abolition of tariffs and all other trade barriers—freely admitting that such a scenario would see the end of manufacturing in the UK, as well as the end of agricultural production and the concomitant loss of millions of jobs.

[Mr Leslie]

I hear very much my hon. Friend’s argument, but would she acknowledge that this is a paving Ways and Means motion seeking, at this snapshot in time, to circumscribe the scope of the Bill to ensure that we can replicate the current customs union? Should we have, at some hypothetical point in the future, that crashing-out scenario, Parliament could address that at that point, and so at present the amendments from my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) are absolutely pertinent to the message we need to send to the Government.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question, but the problem is that the Government’s stated intention with these motions—they have said it time and again—[Interruption.] May I finish my point? They have said time and again that these motions are about our future relationship with the EU. I am afraid that they do not see them as part of a negotiation that might change. I would hope that generally the Government would be far more open about their negotiating position—

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)]

Answer the question.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I just have, if the hon. Gentleman doesn’t mind. The Government have stated that the motions are about that future relationship, and so we have to take them at their word, even if we might have been mistaken in doing that on other issues.

It has been suggested that, if the Government recover a sense of responsibility and sincerity and genuinely engage us in negotiations, albeit after wrongly ruling out a customs union with the EU, it could involve the adoption of deals similar to CETA or the Turkish deal. Now, CETA does not cover agriculture, so if we get a deal on industrial goods procurement and so forth, we might then need, concomitantly, still to have a deal on the protection of sensitive agricultural products, so we would need to have those powers still there. The Turkish bespoke deal, for its part, still necessitates anti-dumping and countervailing duties on both the Turkish and the EU sides.

To conclude, we have to be clear about what amendments (e) and (f) ask for. They do not, in and of themselves, guarantee that the Government will seek continued customs union membership, because they would apply across the piece of whatever arrangements the Government lead us to.

[Ian Murray]

I have tremendous respect for my hon. Friend and the work she has done on this, but if she disagrees with the technical aspects of my amendment but agrees with the principle of staying in the customs union, where are the Front-Bench amendments to do that?

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am a new Member and I do not know how appropriate it is to talk about which amendments have been allowed and which have not. Ultimately, we are seeking a more democratic process, but we cannot vote on that, which is unfortunate. My hon. Friend will know, as will other Opposition Members, that, as I stated before, the Labour Front-Bench position is to leave all options on the table. That is the best thing for Britain to do. It is very unfortunate that the Government have failed to do that, because it is enormously damaging to our negotiating position. I very much regret that the Government still could, irresponsibly and recklessly, lead us towards a no-deal scenario. In that case, these amendments—sadly—would worsen our situation. I know that that is not his intention—quite the opposite—but as stated that is technically what they would lead to.

Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill

Anneliese Dodds Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 8th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

A happy new year to you, Mr Speaker, and to all hon. Members in the Chamber.

This Bill and the Trade Bill, which we will consider tomorrow, could have a significant impact on Britain’s future prosperity. By determining arrangements for governing cross-border trade, customs duty and tariffs, they will decide how our country governs its commerce with the rest of the world. Sadly, as the Bills reveal, rather than proceeding with the task in a transparent way, the Government are again using Brexit as an excuse to allocate themselves more powers, which is incredibly dangerous. Decisions about trade can create jobs, but can also, of course, destroy jobs.

We have heard powerful contributions from Opposition Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) talked about the beef and dairy sectors, and my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) talked about vehicle manufacturing. My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) talked generally about manufacturing and the danger of an ill thought through approach, given the impact it could have on jobs.

It is surely a fundamental principle that there should not be taxation without representation. As is recognised in the very name of the Bill, customs charges and duties, as well as import and export quotas, are effectively forms of taxation. Rather than enabling proper scrutiny and debate on decision making in this area, we see here the same trick that has repeatedly been evident with the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill and the last two Finance Bills: more power to the centre and less power for Parliament. Many concerns about that point were eloquently expressed by Opposition Members, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper).

Labour has four core objections to the Bill that motivate our reasoned amendment, and I will run through them briefly in turn. First, there must be much more parliamentary oversight of our future customs and tariff regimes. We will table amendments in Committee to set out workable arrangements to ensure that governmental decisions are subject to appropriate parliamentary scrutiny and, in particular, why the Government should use amendable resolutions, not ministerial fiat, when deciding important issues such as changing customs tariffs, preferential rates for different countries and remedies for different international trade disputes. Only in that way can Parliament exercise its voice so that parliamentarians whose constituencies could be significantly affected by ill thought through measures can challenge those measures in this place.

I underline that only Labour’s reasoned amendment stresses the need for this, our British Parliament, to prevent yet another wholesale land grab by the Government, in this case on customs duties, charges and quotas—I hope that answers the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith). It is only Labour’s reasoned amendment that concisely and clearly underlines this democratic deficit. In that regard, we heard prescient points from the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), who indicated how some of these measures might be overreaching in their scope. He also made important points about Northern Ireland and Ireland that were echoed by many other colleagues.

Labour’s second problem with the Bill is that it fails to offer businesses and manufacturers the certainty that they desperately need about the UK’s future customs regime. That was pithily expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern), who set out how, despite some of the perhaps ill thought through noises off from Conservative Members, the reality for many British businesses is that the vast majority of their trade is going to be with the rest of the EU. We therefore need a serious debate about our future customs arrangements. Of course, as was underlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), our relationship with other countries is often governed by our relationship with the EU, because trade and customs arrangements are currently set through the EU.

On the problem about the lack of certainty for industry under the Government’s proposals, my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) hit the nail on the head when he said that this Government’s current approach is simply to pat Parliament on the head and say, “Everything will be all right. Don’t worry, it will be all right on the night.” I often enjoy the Minister’s contributions, which tend to be detailed, but he used a strange formulation when he spoke about this point earlier. He said that the Bill—I hope I am quoting him word for word—will “facilitate whatever the will of Parliament ends up being”. The point is that in these negotiations, unfortunately, we are not talking about the will of Parliament, because the Government have in many cases ignored our will. Instead we are talking about what the will of the Government happens to be, and it seems to be one that they want to exercise as freely and unaccountably as possible.

I felt that we got a bit of a reality check from some of the Minister’s other comments. When he was talking about VAT, we heard something that contradicted that previous statement. He said that after the passage of this Bill, it will be up to the Government to decide exactly where we end up on what VAT arrangements will be for British businesses. We are therefore talking about the Government determining taxation arrangements without a proper parliamentary process. On VAT, I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) again doggedly pursuing the issues she has raised many times about the lack of certainty for small businesses on VAT, given the Government’s current approach.

The Minister said it would be “possible” to have continued engagement with the EU on VAT, but we are not talking about possible or potential businesses; we are talking about real businesses that could have real cash-flow problems. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) said clearly, businesses need certainty and they are not currently getting it.

Labour is also concerned about the burden of these new approaches on customs arrangements for HMRC, which, as we know, is already struggling to deal with its existing tasks, even without the upheaval caused by a potential new customs arrangement. Since 2010, one in six HMRC staff has been lost, and we urgently need the Government to recognise the need for a better resourced HMRC in their proposals. That point was forcefully made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty).

Finally, Labour is of course deeply concerned about the Government’s untried, untested and undemocratic approach to trade remedies. As a former MEP, I have seen for myself how the British Government seem keen to push for EU markets, including the UK’s, to be opened up to unfair competition from countries unwilling to hold to trading and human rights rules as part of the debate on most favoured nation status for China. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) expressed his legitimate concerns about the Government’s approach, given the importance of the steel industry to his constituency. That industry has already suffered substantially because of dumping. Similar points were made eloquently by my hon. Friends the Members for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) and for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell). Again, we see the Conservative Government trying to push through new measures that would disadvantage our industries.

The new authority will be debated in more detail tomorrow, but this Bill gives it its powers. It is essential that the body is truly independent and representative of our economy, and that it is staffed not by chums and ideological bedfellows, but by those who know how trade really works: British businesses; our trade unionists, representing workers; and those from the devolved Administrations who can reflect the specific challenges they face. The Trade Remedies Authority cannot be a creature solely of the International Trade Secretary. It should be accountable to Parliament so that parliamentarians can reflect the concerns of our constituents. Disturbingly, we already see that the parameters for the new trade remedies regime set out in this Bill are far weaker than those that even the EU itself is moving towards, and certainly than those exercised already by comparable countries.

We have heard many excellent speeches from Members on both sides of the House, but I particularly want to say how welcome it was to see my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley), with her typical energy, advocating the interests of her constituents in this debate. Many of us, particularly Labour Members, have tried hard to say how we really need a customs regime that is accountable and workable, and that favours the interests of not only consumers, but producers—Great British producers. The Government’s proposals do not remotely measure up to that mark, so I hope that hon. Members will support Labour’s reasoned amendment.

Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill (Third sitting)

Anneliese Dodds Excerpts

Committee Debate: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 25th January 2018 Public Bill Committees

In terms of the money required to ensure that we are ready, in the Budget the Chancellor allocated £3 billion—£1.5 billion for each of the next two years—to ensure that we are sufficiently resourced. We are currently in conversation with HMRC to establish what further additional financial assistance it requires.

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am grateful to you for being in the Chair, Ms Buck. If I may, I will question the Minister on his explanation. I am grateful for it, but on Tuesday we learned that after HMRC’s ongoing restructuring programme there will not be a single HMRC hub north of Edinburgh and Glasgow, nor will there be one anywhere along the south coast, including Dover. We heard ample evidence in the witness sessions that that is the busiest and most concerning port from the point of view of customs procedures going wrong. In the light of that evidence, should we reconsider that HMRC reorganisation programme?

[Mel Stride]

I welcome the hon. Lady to the Committee. She mentions the location of the new HMRC hubs as they are rolled out, and I will make two important points. First, Border Force, which is very much part of the frontline, is in the Home Office’s remit, not HMRC’s. Secondly, proximity to the hubs or otherwise is not critical in determining whether HMRC provides the support that Border Force and other agencies require. The absence of a hub close to a need does not mean that HMRC staff cannot be in proximity to that point; they do not need to be based constantly at any one hub.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention and I fully appreciate that she is taking up recommendations made by the Law Society of Scotland, but let me comment on the two fundamental points she has raised.

First, relating to the relevance—that relevant considerations should be taken into account. The relevance of having the word “relevant” in there, prompts the question whether anybody would ever take decisions based on things that were entirely irrelevant, or at least not relevant. If one went down the road suggested by the hon. Lady, the word “relevant” would probably be inserted in multiple places throughout all the legislation that we ever pass in this House. It is understood that rational Ministers and others would take relevant decisions, rather than irrelevant decisions.

Secondly, before I go too far down this tongue-twisting route—

[Anneliese Dodds]

rose—

[Mel Stride]

Will the hon. Lady indulge me for a second? Parliament—through secondary legislation and in many cases in this Bill—will have the opportunity to test whether any of these measures are being taken on the basis not only of relevant considerations, but of all sorts of other considerations that will be taken into account as to whether these measures that come forward should proceed.

As to the specific point about the amendment relating to the insertion of the numbers, that clause already refers to reference or consideration being made of the quantity of the goods concerned. I think the meaning of the word “number” is, in that context, subsumed by the meaning of the word “quantity”. The Government have received the opinion that the clause already does that which the hon. Lady would like to see it do, namely ensure that the number of goods is also relevant to the function of that particular clause in the legislation.

[Anneliese Dodds]

It is just a brief—the Minister may feel, facetious—comment, but in the Help-to-Save regulations that we recently discussed there is reference to sufficient proof of death from a GP being required. The Government apparently felt that the word “sufficient” was necessary in that context, but most people would think it was not necessary if there is proof of death. Therefore, if an expert body such as the Law Society of Scotland feels that a word such as “relevant” is required, perhaps I would take its word for it.

[Mel Stride]

I am not a legal expert. I obviously appreciate that different words have different meanings in different legal contexts, but from the Government’s point of view, we are satisfied that there is not a requirement to have the word “relevant” inserted. That would be superfluous—to throw in another term—as would be the insertion of the word “number”, for reasons I have given to the hon. Member for Aberdeen North, because it would not affect the functioning or meaning of that clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anneliese Dodds]

I shall speak to amendment 78, which has already been referred to. To be clear, we already have a list in the Bill of different considerations that ought to apply when calculating the rate of import duty for goods in a standard case, which includes,

“the interests of consumers…maintaining and promoting the external trade…maintaining and promoting productivity…the extent to which the goods concerned are subject to competition.”

That is why we suggest that we should have a holistic look at other matters that should be considered.

That is particularly important when it comes to the calculation of import duties with a view to environmental sustainability. When the current chief co-ordinator at the World Trade Organisation, Christiane Kraus, was at the World Bank, she spelled out reasons why environmental considerations might be relevant to the setting of trade parameters, in the absence of other mechanisms for promoting global environmental common goods. We may well be entering a period where it is very difficult to get international agreements on environmental matters, not least because of the direction of the American Administration, so it seems sensible to retain the possibility of so-called eco-tariffs in the Bill.

In addition, even inside the EU’s customs regime, there is evidence of illegal waste trading. Revelations from the Environmental Investigations Agency concerning the toxic trade in cathode ray tubes from the UK to Nigeria and Ghana make for very disturbing reading.

It is absolutely appropriate that we refer to sustainable development in relation to import duties, and to refer to it in this clause would rectify the fact that there is no mention in the rest of the Bill—I was very surprised by this—of the many factors relating to sustainable development that are otherwise covered by the EU customs regime. There is no mention of the environment, aside from the competitive environment; of forestry, aside from in relation to trading stamp schemes; or of chemicals, waste or wildlife. That is a significant departure from the EU customs regime.

The EU’s rules around authorised economic operators indicate that, for a company to become a member of that scheme, it needs to show that it does not have a record of serious infringements, including infringements against environmental legislation. EU legislation is clear that that status can be suspended if there is a threat to public safety, the protection of public health or the environment.

Many other areas in the customs regime that reference or have cross-connections with accompanying EU legislation are not picked up in the Bill. EU forest law enforcement, governance and trade—FLEGT—covers a licensing scheme for timber. That is relevant to import duty costs, because the importer is liable for the cost of the verification of any licences and of the translation of any paperwork related to its enforcement. Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing is strictly controlled through EU regulation. Trans-boundary shipments of waste must comply with the 2006 EU waste shipment regulation.

The CITES treaty applies to wildlife, so we would still be covered by that when we leave the EU, but the EU goes further—that is incorporated in the overall customs regime. For example, there are regulations about documentation and labelling and a longer list of species upon which import controls are applied for the EU compared with under CITES. Finally, when it comes to measures about trade in environmentally-damaging chemicals, we have EU-level quotas on ozone-depleting substances and carbon-producing F-gases, and a notification procedure for other potentially dangerous chemicals.

I accept that in all those areas we could be asking for lots of different amendments to try to rectify some of these problems—I am sure Members will try—but having that environmental sustainability criterion for assessing import duties in the Bill, and placing it near the start, will raise its profile, which the Government sadly seem not to have considered at all when putting the Bill together. That is worrying given the prominence of these matters within the EU’s existing customs regime.

[Peter Dowd]

It is a pleasure to serve under your stewardship, Mrs Buck. I hope that, as in the sessions on the Finance Bill, we will have a major climbdown—the Minister and other members of the Committee will note that from that Bill.

The SNP amendment 106 would require the Government to have regard to the public interest in considering the rate of customs tariffs on our exit. It would add a public interest test to the four existing conditions that the Bill requires the Treasury to have regard to when deciding to apply customs tariffs to goods entering the United Kingdom. Those existing conditions in the Bill are the interests of consumers, the desirability of promoting external trade, the desirability of promoting productivity in the UK and the extent to which goods are subject to competition.

Members will note that, throughout the passage of the Bill, we have been seeking to ensure parliamentary scrutiny. We will continue to do so. In one of the evidence sessions, we heard from one witness, Kathleen Walker Shaw, the European officer of the GMB union, who said that she spent many evenings drafting her union’s response to the trade White Paper only to find eight hours later that the Bills had been published. I think that it is fair to say that that was not a particularly isolated view in the session.

The Opposition have concerns about the specifics of the SNP amendment, which means we take a slightly different approach. We believe that, in key sections of the Bill, the public interest is being used as a mechanism to widen the powers of the Secretary of State. That is perhaps most pronounced in schedule 4, which empowers the Secretary of State to reject a recommendation of the Trade Remedies Authority based upon a belief that it is not in the public interest. I respect people’s beliefs, but in this forum they have to be based on evidence, and I am not sure that we will get much of that. We have tabled a number of amendments of our own, and I want to dwell on them.

It is incumbent on me to point out that public interest is not defined in the Bill. That leaves a good deal of room for manoeuvre for the Secretary of State to determine the public interest, without appropriate parameters about precisely what it means. Precision is not one of the endearing features of the Bill. We are happy for the Government to have powers to take the public interest into account in certain circumstances, but only on the basis that it is concretely defined in primary legislation. That is yet another lacuna in the Bill, and a stubborn point that will be addressed time and again in these proceedings.

The Minister used the example of national security in the evidence session on Tuesday. That does seem a useful definition of public interest, and we believe that national security should provide an explicit limit to the definition of public interest in the Bill. We know, after all, that the Secretary of State has some novel ideas about what the public interest might be. They are views that ostensibly focus on the needs of the consumer over the producer. However, it has to be said that that is a one-dimensional approach taken by the Government, which was laid bare in the witness session. In response to the Financial Secretary’s question about consumers potentially being disadvantaged compared to producers, Ms Crawford responded:

“Consumers are also workers who are employed in some of these industries, and they will not benefit from having unfair trade practice disadvantage them and the quality of their goods. That is something we must bear in mind.”––[Official Report, Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Public Bill Committee, 23 January 2018; c. 42, Q53.]

That is a more sophisticated definitional approach than the Government’s.

Although we support the efforts of the Scottish National party to introduce checks and balances, we have concerns at this stage. In that regard, we cannot support the amendment. I hope the hon. Member for Aberdeen North will take our statement in good faith.

Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill (Fifth sitting)

Anneliese Dodds Excerpts

Committee Debate: 5th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 30th January 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move amendment 32, in schedule 4, page 61, line 20, leave out from ‘minimal’ to end of line 33.

This amendment removes the need for a market share requirement to be met before the TRA may initiate a dumping or subsidisation investigation.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 34, in schedule 4, page 61, line 45, leave out paragraphs (g) and (h).

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 32.

Amendment 35, in schedule 4, page 62, line 1, leave out ‘(d)’ and insert ‘(c)’.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 32.

Amendment 36, in schedule 4, page 62, line 6, leave out ‘(d)’ and insert ‘(c)’.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 32.

Amendment 37, in schedule 4, page 62, line 16, leave out ‘(d)’ and insert ‘(c)’.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 32.

Amendment 38, in schedule 4, page 62, line 37, leave out ‘(d)’ and insert ‘(c)’.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 32.

[Anneliese Dodds]

We tabled the amendments because the proposed market share requirements will not only put us out of step with comparable nations but stop action being taken to prevent uncompetitive disruption of infant industries. According to the Government’s proposals, applications to the TRA for an investigation will be subject to a UK market share threshold. As with so much in the Bill—as we have been discussing—we do not know how the threshold will be determined nor what its range is likely to be, let alone the actual value for different industrial sectors. The Government have given as their explanation for the measure the filtering out of cases with little chance of success. Yet, as already discussed in Committee, the Government have already set out a range of tests that must be passed before any action can be taken—tests that are already more stringent than is the case under EU legislation, and considerably stronger than those that the EU is moving towards.

I normally agree fully with every word that is uttered by my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe, but I did not completely agree when he said that he was pleased to hear the Government saying, or hinting at least, that we would have a system at least as favourable to British industry as the existing one. With the different tests to do with economic interest or public interest, whether those applied by the TRA or the Secretary of State, that regime is far more stringent than that applied by the EU.

In addition, I am concerned that the measure proposed in the Bill could cause a lot of ambiguity and be problematic for the TRA. We are informed that the TRA must accept an application that meets the UK market share threshold, although of course both it and the Secretary of State can then decide not to proceed as a result of their overly stringent tests once they get into the investigation—but let us leave that aside. If an application does not meet the UK threshold but does meet WTO thresholds, the TRA may use its discretion as to whether to accept it. However, we can legitimately ask why the TRA should be put in a potentially difficult position, especially when legal action could be levelled against it by the company that is deemed to have engaged in dumping precisely because the TRA has used that discretion.

In addition, I do not understand why the UK has decided to adopt an apparently higher threshold of market share before applications may be accepted when, according to the stakeholders I have talked to, no other country seems to have adopted that approach. This is not about criteria within the investigation: it is about the criteria necessary before an investigation is allowed at all. As with the unique electoral system that led to the hanging chad problem in the US, there is a clear reason why this approach is so unique: it is not workable. The Minister rightly referred to learning from best practice, so it would be helpful for us to know which countries have that test in place before an investigation can be started and why it was believed that this is best practice. I have so far not been able to find any countries that operate such a system. If there are some, it would be wonderful to hear about them.

The Minister suggested in his previous remarks that, much of the time, all the Government are doing is simply transposing WTO requirements. However, the terms of the general agreement on tariffs and trade enable countries to take action, particularly to prevent uncompetitive disruption to infant industries. That could be prevented by this kind of test before an investigation can even be started. That process of uncompetitive disruption to infant industries is known as material retardation, which is quite a well-known concept when it comes to trade disputes and is interpreted quite broadly.

Rules within the Mercosur agreement—the South American trade agreement—state that countries can take measures, first, to ensure that infant industries can be established, but also that there can be, without uncompetitive disruption, the establishment of a new branch of production in an existing industry, the substantial transformation of an existing industry or the substantial expansion of an existing industry supplying a relatively small proportion of domestic demand. That is a very wide reading of what measures against material retardation can enable, and a broad reading of the concept of an infant industry as well. Those rules are already in action in the Mercosur agreement, so I hope the Minister will clearly explain why the UK should deny itself those kind of powers that other countries seem keen to avail themselves of.

I hope he will also indicate how he envisages that market share restriction working, which will be used even before investigations start. I read the “Trade Remedies Research” paper, produced by Van Bael & Bellis and Copenhagen Economics, which I am sure other Members have looked at as well. They looked in great detail at some of the methodological issues relating to the use of trade remedies and they indicated in detail the variety of considerations relevant to calculating market share that the EU has used once an investigation has opened—not as part of a test to determine the opening of an investigation but as part of determining the harm caused by dumping.

They indicated the potential drawbacks of, for example, setting a quantitative measure on the evolution of import volumes in relative terms—in comparison with domestic consumption—in order to determine how the market share of foreign exporters against UK industry has changed over time following dumped imports. That is because our market in the UK is small, and so domestic consumption can vary dramatically from year to year because the number of industry operators tends to be more concentrated.

There are some very difficult methodological issues here when it comes to calculations that might be involved in an investigation. We are talking about the TRA having to carry out calculations potentially with a similar level of methodological difficulty, even before an investigation is opened. Will the Minister indicate what kind of methodology he proposes to avoid those problems? Above all, will he please let us know why our country seems to be adopting this approach, which, as I say, I cannot find any analogue for in comparable nations?

[Kirsty Blackman]

I will say just a few things to follow on from the shadow Front Benchers on this. It is strange that market share is being used in this regard as something that will be taken into account. It is almost as if the TRA cannot be bothered to investigate a company if it does not have a certain market share. For that industry, and for manufacturers in particular, it does not matter what their percentage of market share is; what matters is the injury that is being done to them by dumping. Market share is not relevant, and I do not understand why it is included in the Bill. It may be relevant to the Treasury because it affects the tax take it gets from the industry, but it is not relevant to the protection we should be affording to the industry.

This proposal has geographical implications, given that these new goods will be made in the industrial north of the country. Those products may not meet the market share threshold, but they may be incredibly innovative and may improve productivity and make this country a better place to be. Those things will not be taken into account.

I have argued previously that if the fishing industry is decimated as a result of Brexit, that is a geographical issue for the affected communities. It does not have a massive implication for the Treasury’s tax take, but it does for those communities. I fear that this market share test is not only unnecessary, but has implications for the choices that communities make.

--- Later in debate ---

Hon. Members also raised infant industries. The hon. Member for Oxford East suggested that the market share threshold might prevent emerging industries from seeking trade remedies. That is not what the market share threshold is designed to do, so to prevent such a situation, the Bill allows the TRA to choose to waive the market share threshold in special cases. That will help in cases such as those she describes, in which an emerging UK industry struggles to establish itself in the face of dumped or subsidised imports.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am grateful for the Minister’s comments. The additional information that he provides is useful, but he still has not made it clear whether any other countries operate such a restriction. I appreciate what he says about the potential opacity of other regimes, but we have not had a clear answer to that question. It may well be that some independent actors have written an evaluation of the EU system that says that such an approach should be implemented. However, as I understand it, the EU has not committed to moving towards such a system. It seems to be just the UK that is explicitly adopting it as a policy commitment, unlike any other country.

[The Chair]

Order. The hon. Lady is straying from an intervention into a full speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stuart]

For the reasons I have set out, I think the market share test is an eminently sensible part of our regime. I hope the Committee will agree.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am grateful to the Minister for letting us intervene—he has been very generous in that respect. I say gently that I would have hoped for a little more impact assessment before we signed up to a system that is, to adopt the kind of language he used, unique in the world and a world-beating innovation, if we are indeed doing that.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen North made clear that vexatious complaints will be screened out by the economic and public interest tests, which are more stringent than those in the EU regime that we will take on board under the TRA.

The Minister referred to this process being an indication to firms of whether they have any hope of success, but it is not. We are not talking about a guideline. We are talking about a threshold that is a block. Yes, that block can be disregarded by the TRA, but it cannot be overruled by the complainant. That is the whole point. It is not just an indication. It is stronger than a guideline or a set of theoretical considerations. It is potentially a block on firms trying to seek redress through the TRA, which is unique in the world. I had hoped that we might have more explanation of that, despite the Minister’s valiant attempts.

[Graham Stuart]

Let me try to come back again. The share test comes at the beginning. We have to think about the order. The point is to provide transparency at the beginning of the process and to ensure, exactly as industry has asked, that we do not waste time on complaints, vexatious or otherwise, that have no chance of resulting in measures. That is the whole point of the test. It will be quickly applied and—the Opposition do not seem to have understood this—will have exemptions for infant industries. The system will provide a more transparent form of that which is routinely applied in other countries.

Question put, That the amendment be made.