Mr President, Commissioner, my contribution to today’s debate concerns the steel aid code, that is the state aid in Europe granted in accordance with this code and which was assessed by the Commission. There were a total of 27 cases in 1998 and the Commission submitted its own report on these. The ECSC Treaty is due to expire shortly. Hence, what we must focus on today is the question as to how state aid is to be managed in future. The European Commission’s decisions, which feature in the report, are welcomed by the European Parliament, as is the decision to ask for the money back in specific cases, thus applying Article 88 of the ECSC Treaty. The competitiveness of the European steel industry also forms the subject of the Commission’s most recent communication, which we have not yet debated in Parliament. As in other sectors, the general ban on state aid according to Article 87 (1) of the EC Treaty also applies to the iron and steel industry. According to this article, state aid is irreconcilable with the common market, in principle. Exemptions are only permitted in precisely defined cases. Under Article 88, the Commission is obliged to supervise state aid. In 1998, the largest case concerned the supply of company capital totalling EUR 540 million to the PREUSSAG in Germany. Furthermore, the Member States must give the Commission advance warning with regard to their intentions concerning state aid. The rules pertaining to the steel industry were drawn up on 18 December 1996. These stipulate that state aid can only be awarded to the steel industry in particular, precisely-defined cases i.e. those involving aid for research and development, aid for environmental protection, social security to ease the closure of steelworks and aid to help non-competitive enterprises cease trading altogether. In addition, there is a special provision of up to EUR 50 million for Greece. However, there were obviously problems with the practical administration of the steel aid code over the past few years that were not brought fully to bear in the report. As far as Parliament is concerned, it is important for us to waste no time in getting down to a debate on the regulations that are to succeed this state aid code once it has expired. There must be no watering-down of the existing principles underlying the steel aid code. No one wants an unimpeded subsidy competition in Europe. This would be to the considerable disadvantage of the internal market, regardless of the fact that the steel industry has undergone consolidation in the past few years. Consequently, Parliament believes it is necessary for the steel aid code to be amended in the light of the industry’s claims about unequal treatment, and for the Commission to provide the Council with follow-up regulations. We all know that so far the Council has dragged its feet with regard to follow-up regulations of this kind. The reason for this is that people are under the impression that once the steel aid code expires, they will be able to do their own thing again without the inconvenience of the European Commission’s supervision. We therefore demand that once the Treaty expires, steel aid must be regulated by a Council regulation according to Article 94, for that is the only way to create the necessary legal validity and clarity. This is the only way to enforce the strict ban on all aid not covered by the code. A Council regulation that is directly applicable law must also be observed by the regional governments. What we need to avoid doing in the future is compromising competition conditions and disturbing the balance in the markets. We also need to criticise the Commission’s practice of approving multiple aid packages for steel enterprises which in their view, do not fall within the categories of the code, even given the fact that the European Court of Justice approved this unequal treatment where certain individual decisions were concerned. The Commission will be called upon, in a report that has yet to be compiled for the year 1999, to give a detailed explanation of its active role in the elaboration of restructuring plans and approved exemptions, thus enabling a proper assessment of the overall situation to be made. Once the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has adopted the draft report unanimously with two abstentions, I would ask that we make full use of this opportunity, which we have ourselves created, in plenary sitting.

Political group: PPE-DE