Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-03-12-Speech-1-156"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010312.10.1-156"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I shall now turn to the last point raised regarding the production restriction on the yards of the former East Germany. I would like to start by explaining the origins of the capacity restraints and the reasons why they have been imposed. Capacity restraint was imposed on the yards of the former Democratic Republic of Germany by a special Council directive, adopted in 1992, which contained a derogation from the prevailing regulations on operating aid applicable at that time to Community shipyards. The aim of the derogation directive was to make it possible for the yards in question to carry out all-embracing, urgent restructuring and thus become competitive on the market. To this end, these yards received ongoing financial aid. It must be stressed that the aid was intended to ensure the survival of the yards in question, which would not have been able to operate on Western markets without carrying out a far-reaching restructuring process. The granting of substantial aid, however, required compensation measures to be adopted in order to offset the distortive effect of the aid on competition. This is why the Council imposed capacity restraints on the yards concerned during that period, precisely to offset the distortion of competition caused by the large amounts of aid granted. The capacity restraints were established for a period of ten years, which is until the end of 2005. My departments have the task of monitoring observance of these restraints.
The legislative framework applicable to the restraints, however, does stipulate that, after the first five years, a Member State may request that the Commission bring the restraints in question to an end or review them. With regard to the question of whether the Commission intends to avail itself of the possibility provided for by the legislation in question to assess whether a review of the capacity restraints would be justified, I would stress that the Commission's leeway in a decision on this matter is extremely limited. The Commission is bound by the provisions of the directive in question, according to which, when it assesses whether any revision of the capacity restraints is possible and justified, it has to take into account the existing balance between supply and demand in the shipping industry at world level. I am willing to examine the possibility provided for by the prevailing legislation of reviewing the current restraints. I am willing to examine any proposals made in this area. The issue will have to be carefully examined, however, in the light of the relevant legislation and the Commission's monitoring practices. We are aware of the fact that the East German shipyards' share of the European market fell from 11.3% in 1994 to 6.9% in 1998. I must point out, however, that this is not so much the result of the imposition of capacity restraints as the general trend of the shipbuilding industry in Europe.
Europe is a still a world leader in top-of-the-range cruise shipbuilding. Since the mid-nineties, there has been a considerable increase in demand for cruise ships, which represent a large part of the total value of European shipbuilding. East German yards, however, produce other types of ships such as portacontainers. Therefore, alongside the increase in production of top-of-the-range cruise ships in Europe, the share occupied by East German yards has fallen. The fundamental question would therefore not appear to be the quantities produced so much as the yards' specialisation in certain types of production."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples