FIONA FIGHTS FOR PRICE-CUTS TO ENERGY-EFFICIENT LIGHT BULBS (Fiona Hall MEP)

Fiona Hall MEP <info@fionahall.org.uk>

FIONA FIGHTS FOR PRICE-CUTS TO ENERGY-EFFICIENT LIGHT BULBS

March 25, 2007 12:00 AM

While Europe's leaders are urging householders to fit energy-efficient light bulbs, the Liberal Democrats in the European Parliament are challenging moves to block a cut in prices. As the Commission reviews an anti-dumping case on imports of compact fluorescent light bulbs from China, Fiona Hall and Sajjad Karim question whether maintaining duties would be coherent with EU calls for an outright ban on old-fashioned, energy wasting light bulbs.

Fiona Hall MEP, Liberal Democrat Energy Spokesperson, said:

"Ending the duty on Chinese imports would cut the price of energy-efficient bulbs to the level of conventional bulbs. Surely if we want European householders to make the switch-over to energy-saving light bulbs, we must make it a cost-effective alternative too.

"Replacing just one old-fashioned bulb with an energy efficient alternative can reduce household lighting costs by up to £9 per year, or £100 over the lightime of the bulb. This green switch would also save tonnes of CO2 emissions."

Sajjad Karim MEP, Liberal Democrat Spokesperson on International Trade, said:

"I'm not surprised that Italy is amongst those EU governments plotting to keep the duties against China in place. As far as Italy is concerned, the "Community Interest" is the interest of the Italian manufacturing industry. They don't seem to care how their illiberal policies on Chinese imports are hitting the pocket of the consumer and now, it would seem, damaging the environment.

"Opponents of the duties -- including heavyweights in the industry like Philips Lighting -- already account for more than 50% of European production. Based on that fact alone, the Commission should terminate the review and end the duties. But even if Commissioner Mandelson is prepared to allow non-trade concerns affect anti-dumping cases, as he has done in the past, then surely protecting the environment should top those concerns."

Sign the petition to ban incandescant light bulbs online now.

The full question submitted to the Commission by Fiona Hall and Sajjad Karim:

Definitive duties on compact fluorescent light bulbs were imposed in 2001 under Council Regulation (EC) No 1470/2001. The duties were due to expire on 19 July 2006 but, at the request of OSRAM and after consultation with the Member States, the Commission opened an expiry review to examine whether dumping would be likely to recur in the absence of the duties. The review opened on 19 July 2006 and must be concluded by 19 October 2007. The existing duties stay in place, pending the completion of the review.

Does the Commission agree that it would not be appropriate to extend these duties, as the burden on the consumer of more expensive light bulbs would be greater across the Community as a whole, than the economic benefit to the Community of defending OSRAM? Does the Commission agree that the fact that Philips Lighting, General Hungary and Sylvania Lighting Ltd all oppose the continuation of duties reinforces this view?

Is the Commission prepared to terminate the expiry review - and consequently the duties - because the opponents of the review (namely Philips Lighting, General Hungary and Sylvania Lighting Ltd) account for more than 50% of the Community production, in line with Article 5 (4) of the basic Anti-Dumping Regulation?

Moreover, does the Commission consider it to be incoherent with the German Presidency's initiative for an outright ban on traditional light bulbs (to encourage people to switch to more environmentally-friendly low-energy bulbs) to propose the continuation of anti-dumping duties on light bulbs specifically designed to improve energy efficiency?