Protection of Trading Interests Act (Hansard, 12 March 1993)

§ Mr. Batiste
To ask the President of the Board of Trade what criteria are used for assessing the desirability of making statutory instruments under the Protection of Trading Interests Act 1980; and if he will list all such statutory instruments which have been made.

§ Mr. Needham
In general, successive Governments have sought to minimise potential conflicts with our trading partners by seeking to resolve issues through discussion and consultation; they have, however, been prepared to use the powers under the Protection of Trading Interests Act 1980 when doing so appeared to he the best way to protect the trading interests of the United Kingdom in particular cases. Since the Act was passed in 1980, the Secretary of State has made statutory instruments in only four cases:

(i) On 30 June 1982, a section 1(1) Order (S.I. 1982 No. 885) was applied to the United States West Siberian pipeline re-export controls.

(ii) On 23 June 1983 a section 1(1) Order (S.I. 1983 No. 900) was applied to sections 1 and 2 of the United States Sherman Act and sections 4 and 4A of the United States Clayton Act in cases where United Kingdom airlines designated under the Bermuda 2 agreement concerning air services are parties to agreements, or other acts, concerning tariffs or which otherwise relate to the operation of an air service authorised under the Bermuda 2 agreement.

(iii) On 23 March 1988, a section 5(4) Order (S.I. 1988 No. 569) was made applying section 5(2)(b) of the Protection of Trading Interests Act 1980 to section 81(1A) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 of Australia, making unenforceable in the United Kingdom an overseas judgment under the Australian Act ordering divestment of assets acquired in contravention of that Act's merger control provisions.
769
(iv) On 14 October 1992 a section 1(1) Order (S.I. 1992 No. 2449) was applied to those provisions of part 515 (entitled Cuban Assets Control Regulations) of title 31 of the Code of Federal Regulations which affect trading activities carried on in the United Kingdom or the import of goods to or the export of goods from the United Kingdom.

§ Mr. Batiste
To ask the President of the Board of Trade on how many occasions the Protection of Trading Interests Act 1980 has been invoked; against whom, and if he will make a statement.

§ Mr. Needham
The Secretary of State has made the following orders and directions under the Protection of Trading Interests Act 1980:
On 3 March 1981, a section 2 direction was issued to a United Kingdom company to prohibit compliance with a demand by the United States Commodity Futures Trading Commission to provide it with commercial information located outside the United States.
On 30 June 1982, a section 1(1) order, (S.I. 1982 No. 885), was applied to the United States West Siberian pipeline re-export controls. Such an order brings into operation the Secretary of State's powers under sections 1(2), 1(3), and 2 of the PTIA.
On 2 August 1982, section 1(3) directions were issued to AFF Ltd., Baker Oil Tools (United Kingdom) Ltd., John Brown Engineering Ltd., and Smith International (North Sea) Ltd., to prohibit compliance with the United States West Siberian pipeline re-export controls.
On 10 September 1982, section 1(3) directions were issued to Andrew Corporation and the Walter Kidde Company Ltd., to prohibit compliance with the United States West Siberian pipeline re-export controls.
On 2 November 1982, a section 1(3) direction was issued to Seaco Sales and Service (North Sea) Ltd. to prohibit compliance with the United States West Siberian pipeline re-export controls.
On 23 June 1983, a section 1(1) order (S.I. 1983 No. 900) was applied to sections 1 and 2 of the United States Sherman Act and sections 4 and 4A of the United States Clayton Act in cases where United Kingdom airlines designated under the Bermuda 2 agreement concerning air services are parties to agreements, or other acts, concerning tariffs or which otherwise relate to the operation of an air service authorised under the Bermuda 2 agreement.
On 23 June 1983, a section 1(3) general direction was issued prohibiting any person in the United Kingdom carrying on business from complying with the United States anti-trust measures in relation to the cases described in the section 1(1) order of 23 June 1983.
On 23 June 1983, a section 2 general direction was issued prohibiting any person in the United Kingdom from complying with any requirement from the United States Department of Justice or the grand jury to produce commercial documents located in the United Kingdom or any information concerning possible violations of sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act by United Kingdom-designated airlines. The direction also applied to any requirement from the United States district court of Columbia concerning similar matters, which were subject to civil anti-trust proceedings.
On 1 July 1983, a further section 2 general direction was made to clarify the scope of the section 2 general direction issued on 23 June 1983.
770W
On 16 July 1984, a general direction under section 2 was issued prohibiting any person in the United Kingdom from complying with any requirement from the United States district court of Columbia to produce commercial documents in the United Kingdom, or any commercial information in respect of further United States civil anti-trust proceedings against United Kingdom-designated airlines.
On 20 March 1986, general directions under section 2 were issued prohibiting any person in the United Kingdom from complying with any requirement from the United States district court of Columbia and the district court for the central district of California to produce commercial documents in the United Kingdom, or any commercial information in respect of further United States civil anti-trust proceedings against United Kingdom designated airlines.
On 23 March 1988, a section 5(4) order (S.I. 1988 No. 569) was made applying section 5(2)(b) of the PTIA to section 81(1A) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 of Australia, making unenforceable in the United Kingdom an overseas judgment under the Australian Act ordering divestment of assets acquired in contravention of that Act's merger control provisions.
On 12 July 1991, a section 2 direction was issued to a company to prohibit compliance with a court order made by a court in the United States of America.
On 14 October 1992, a section 1(1) order (S.I. 1992 No. 2449) was applied to those provisions of part 515 (entitled Cuban Assets Control Regulations) of title 31 of the United States Code of Federal Regulations which affect trading activities carried on in the United Kingdom or the import of goods to or the export of goods from the United Kingdom.
On 14 October 1992, a general direction under section 1(3) was issued prohibiting any persons in the United Kingdom from complying, except with the consent of the Secretary of State, with the prohibitions imposed by the Cuban Assets Control Regulations cited in the section 1(1) order of 14 March 1992.