Mr President, Commissioner, it is altogether excellent that the Industry Council at its meeting last week unanimously approved a list of measures to eliminate the situation of unhealthy competition caused by Korea. Hopefully these measures will work, as South Korea’s operations really weaken the prospects for success of European shipyards in the face of already intense competition from elsewhere. As the Finnish Minister for Trade and Industry clearly stated at the meeting, the EU, however, must not give as good as it gets when it comes to South Korea; in other words, it must not return to the idea that it is not prepared to give up its shipyards. To borrow the Minister’s words, continuing such support would be tantamount to the EU shooting itself in the foot. This is precisely what the South Koreans must be hoping for. For a long time now the Commission has aimed to give up shipyard aid in its present form, and this aim should absolutely be maintained. The idea is to replace shipyard aid with newly designed investment and environmental aid schemes and grant more aid to research and innovation, which is what Mrs Langenhagen so eloquently spoke about. With the new schemes the Commission aspires to support a more environment-friendly, safer European fleet, as was decided in 1997 in connection with the guidelines for state aid for maritime transport. I gladly welcome this policy, as long as it is also implemented in practice. I would especially like to remind the Commissioner that the Union promised Finland, when we were negotiating membership, that it would take account of our remoteness and climate when deciding its aims for navigation policy for the whole continent. In July 1999, the Finnish Ministry of Transport and Communications notified the Commission of the interest subsidy programme for vessel acquisitions, set up to promote the purchase and basic repair of safe and environment-friendly cargo ships which can sail easily through icy waters, these being essential in Northern Europe. There is broad national consensus on the issue in the Finnish Parliament, as shown by the fact that, exceptionally, on its own initiative, the parliament increased powers to solicit acquisitions in the 1999 budget. As a former Minister of Finance, Commissioner Liikanen will understand the significance of this. Now, however, it would appear that officials in the Commission’s Directorate-General for competition have a firm intention to interpret the programme in question as aid to shipyards, although the programme does not affect the competitive position of shipyards, as a ship receiving aid can be ordered from any country whatsoever. This is also what was stated in the Commission’s letter of 4 August 1999 by officials in Directorate-General VII when they pointed out that the aid had no connection with shipyards in the EU. I would also like to take the opportunity of asking the Commissioner how the Commission intends to ensure environmentally friendly developments and greater safety in maritime transport in Northern Europe, if it does not allow the implementation of the action framework it created itself. Although we have clearly decided to abandon shipyard aid, the recent events in South Korea cannot be allowed to lead to a situation where the Union starts to confuse the old-fashioned shipyard aid with the action based on the 1997 guidelines, which did not relate to competition policy but were purely in line with sustainable development and the ‘safety of the seas’ doctrine. Finally I would ask you, Commissioner Liikanen, how it is possible for a Member State to create a policy on navigation if it cannot trust in the directions given by the Commission? How has the Commission in its recent exchange of letters with the Finnish Government taken account of the protocol on navigational policy in our negotiations for membership?

Political group: PPE-DE