Mr President, in a debate which is as specific and as objective as this one on European shipbuilding, it is not easy to avoid repetition. As a matter of fact it is impossible to avoid it, but we are talking about an extremely sensitive political issue and that is why it is important that the Commission and the Council know that there is a broad consensus in Parliament on this matter and great concern to find a solution to the problem. As Mrs Langenhagen said, the crisis in Europe’s shipbuilding industry has not appeared overnight, but has been with us for more than 25 years. In fact, as the official statistics available to us show, in the last 20 years this industry has lost four-fifths of the jobs that it had in Europe, which is in fact a huge proportion. And it is becoming particularly tragic because this massive loss of jobs – in an industry that once employed half a million people – is generally taking place on the periphery of Europe, as you can tell from the nationalities of almost all of the Members who have been speaking here. And it is on the periphery of Europe that, as we all know, there are the fewest opportunities for employment. But now, in the current state of play, the situation is becoming particularly unsustainable. Korea is not the whole problem. As several Members have pointed out, the Korean problem has occurred as a result of a combination of situations and factors, some within our control and others outside it: there was the Asian crisis, hyper-devaluation by more than 30% of the national currency – the won – and there was the concomitant support from the IMF which led to this unique – I would call it bizarre – situation in which Korea finds itself, not to mention the unfair way it has competed with us in recent times. But we must not forget that this is also the case with the United States. The United States, whose propaganda image is as the champion of free trade, of the free market, only takes this position because of what it can gain from it: on the audio-visual industry, on the food industry, on anything that is of interest to them. But when it comes to other industries, such as this one, they are highly protectionist. We would do well to keep this in mind! This Council position must be followed up. It is indeed important for the Council to take a political stand, but it must be followed up. I think that it is crucial that the European Union exerts considerable pressure in order to have Korea make a voluntary production agreement in addition to everything that has already been discussed in terms of rules designed to prevent this kind of distortion to competition. For one thing is essential: it is not just the jobs that Europe could still lose in this industry that are under threat. The problem is that the shipbuilding industry, covering all the kinds of ships that we have discussed today, is an industry of strategic importance for Europe. And so, of course, it is undergoing a structural change: the type of ship is going to change certainly, but in an industry of such strategic importance, Europe cannot remain in foreign hands in terms of the building and the supply of these ships. Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, on the eve of the opening of a new trade round in which everyone will be talking about free and fair trade, what is happening in the shipbuilding industry is really quite ironic. And that is why I think that we in the European Union must be prepared to remember this industry in Seattle, because there is no reason why this industry should remain outside the GATT rules. If this does not happen, if this is globalisation, then there is nothing more to say.

Political group: PPE-DE