Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-12-14-Speech-4-125"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001214.3.4-125"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, it seems to have become an end-of-year tradition to hold a debate on the situation in the shipbuilding industry. In terms of merchant shipping, there is still a subsidy race being held at world level. This is at the expense of shipyards in the EU Member States, as well as yards based in Norway, Japan and the United States. We are in complete agreement on this: the subsidy race should end as soon as possible. However, it looks very much as if the goal posts are being moved each time, so that we will never reach the finishing line.
The Commission and Parliament’s criticism is levelled at Korea because it still provides by far the highest subsidies to shipyards, with painful consequences for yards in European countries and Japan. But nearly everyone knows that within the European Union too, there are large discrepancies in terms of subsidy level per order. On paper, the highest level of support per order amounts to three and a half times the lowest level, but in practice, it appears that a number of EU Member States are giving extra hand-outs to their maritime industry in a non-transparent manner. Moreover, Article 7 of Regulation No 1540 from 1998 is still in force. This provision contributes in its own way to the unequal growth in support levels. This leads to sound, efficient yards being punished, whilst inefficient ones are given an injection of money.
If we provide extra funding to the weaker European yards at the expense of the stronger ones, how can we survive Korean and – no doubt soon to follow suit – Chinese subsidisation of their shipyards in the long run? This is a question from which the Commissioner cannot run away. I therefore urge the Commission and MEPs not only to point the finger at Korea, but also to examine the situation on their own home turf. Why does the Commission not institute an inquiry into the actual subsidy level per order within the European Union? Where is the proposal to abolish all kinds of non-transparent support schemes in relation to research and development, environmental and regional support policy? If there is no level playing field in the shipbuilding sector within the European Union, how can we expect to fight competition from Korea and elsewhere?
I share the rapporteur’s view that, as long as Korea does not act pursuant to the WTO provisions, it is justifiable to provide yards standard support for each order as an emergency measure. This transparent form of support discourages European yards from applying all kinds of reduction or marketing methods which do not conform to the market. At the same time, pressure on Korea must be stepped up, and we must involve the OECD if necessary, by taking anti-dumping measures. These will preferably be measures which hit conglomerates such as Hyundai and Daewoo where it hurts, at which point we will have a chance of breaking down the closed Korean front.
I would like to thank Mr Langen for his work and hope that we do not have a re-run of the same debate at the end of next year."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples