Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-10-11-Speech-3-132"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20061011.16.3-132"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, honourable Members, I am replacing my colleague Peter Mandelson in this debate. Peter is currently on his way to the EU-India Summit with Minister Lehtomäki and he really is on duty because we have many important trade policies to discuss with India.
Last week the Council adopted the measures proposed by the Commission to tackle the dumping of Chinese and Vietnamese footwear in the European Union. These measures offer a balanced solution in a complex case; a solution which responds to the clear evidence of unfair competitive practices and state intervention which has enabled Chinese and Vietnamese companies to engage in dumping in the European Union.
The measures now adopted will help to redress the situation. They offer some comfort to footwear producers in the Union while taking into account both the interests of consumers and the changing structure of the sector within the Union, where many household names in the footwear sector now choose to manufacture outside the Union.
This is in fact a case study of our ability to respond to the challenges and opportunities presented by globalisation. The full findings of the investigation are set out in the measures which we published on 6 October, as well as the details of how we established the level of dumping and injury to EU industry and determined the appropriate level of duties in this case. This information is in the public domain and is of course, as in every other case, open to public and, ultimately, judicial scrutiny.
With regard to the possible use of a deferred duty scheme, it is correct that the Commission considered such an approach as a possible response to this case. Such a novel approach would indeed have had certain advantages, but it did not command the support of a majority of Member States. The Commission listened to the concerns of the Member States and in late August presented the measures which have just been adopted by the Council.
In formulating the level of duty, the Commission applied the ‘lesser-duty rule’, which is part of our existing legal framework and entirely consistent with the international framework applying to anti-dumping. This rule allows the Commission to set levels of duty which reflect the actual damage being suffered by EU industry rather than the level of dumping established in the investigation. This is not in itself a novel approach. At the same time, given the nature of this sector, where quotas on shoe imports applied up to 2005, this was an important factor which needed to be taken into account in determining the appropriate level of duty to be applied. Nevertheless, the situation is specific to this particular case, and, while each case must be judged on its own merits, particularly when we face globalisation, it does not as such represent a fundamental change in the way we deal with trade defence cases.
Let me conclude by highlighting that the kinds of challenges posed in the shoes case cannot be ignored. This is why, as part of our push to strengthen our external competitiveness, the Commission will publish a Green Paper in December looking at how our trade defence instruments operate in the context of economic globalisation.
I am very much looking forward to that debate and I believe we need to work together to look for practical, sensible improvements that will reinforce the ability of Europe’s businesses to compete fairly in a global marketplace. I am very much looking forward to Parliament’s active participation in this debate."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples