Lord Kennedy of Southwark – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Lord Kennedy of Southwark on 2016-05-25.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment have they made of the case for removing the Lesser Duty Rule.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe

The Government believes that effective trade defence measures should be proportionate, not protectionist, and strike a balance between removing the injury to producers caused by unfair trade, and avoiding imposing unnecessary costs on user industries, retailers, consumers and the rest of the economy.

The evidence we have shows that duties that have been imposed under the Lesser Duty Rule on imports of Chinese steel into the EU have been effective in delivering rapid, substantial and sustained reductions in imports. For example, imports of wire rod, organic coated steel and stainless steel flat products are down by more than 90%. We have said we would look at evidence that others might provide.

There are a number of examples where the Lesser Duty Rule has avoided unnecessary costs to the rest of the economy. In the case of solar panels for example, the removal of the Lesser Duty Rule could have cost the downstream UK solar sector around £500m in one year.

We support looking at the methodology under which injury is calculated. Where the European Commission has set duties that we believe to be too low to remove the injury caused to EU industry by unfair trade, we will push for them to be increased, as we have done in the reinforcing bar and cold rolled flat products cases.