Mr President, Madam Vice-President and dear fellow-believers – I can call you that, because all of those sitting here are those who have moved this project forward over the years and who are committed to making ships safe. Speaking on behalf of the Group of the , I would like to observe – it being two years since the Erika disaster – that we may be a little late with the adoption of this legislative package, but we have not done at all badly in terms of keeping to the timetable if you consider the difficulties that have been involved. Even then, two areas of the legislation have involved us having to go through a second reading and the conciliation procedure. Today, we can see that, on the basis of the Commission's initial proposals submitted two years ago now after the tanker crashed, our joint efforts have brought progress, and I again wish to thank you, Commissioner de Palacio, for the committed support you and your colleagues gave us in the conciliation process. By means both of these two results from the conciliation process and the common position, we have significantly increased not only the safety of ships, but also that of their crews, the environment and of people who live in coastal regions. I believe that enhanced port state control, more stringent regulations for classification societies and the progressive introduction of double hull tankers mean that we really have moved ahead in preventing accidents like that of the Erika, or at least alleviating their consequences. Commissioner, I would like to say this about port state control. I believe it was a good thing that, in the conciliation process, we – and especially Mark Watts – insisted on sorting out the ‘black box’ issue now. You will see that the ‘Erika II’ package does not quite go that far. I hope it soon will do, but you will be aware that it is still causing a few difficulties. That being so, we were right to insist on the requirement for a ‘black box’ being incorporated into the ‘Erika I’ package. My colleagues are aware that I am less happy about the result of the ship classification issue. We may well not have an upper limit, but we do have an appeal clause. I trust that the Commission will, after three years, produce a report submitting new proposals to us on how damage can be compensated for. This affects shipping companies, shipping agents, and classification societies – how about a fair compromise on who should shoulder the damage? We were, I think, very wise when it came to the common position on double hull tankers. We should let the whole world know that. We are always being accused of drafting European norms and disregarding worldwide conventions. No! We have accepted that the IMO sets the ground rules and have only made minor changes affecting implementation and time limits. What we have insisted on as regards implementation looks quite harmless in comparison with what the Americans forced through! I hope we will be able to adopt the second package next year. So, Commissioner, bring some pressure to bear on the Council! As far as the ‘cope fund’ compensation rule is concerned, we do not want to be kept waiting for the next five years. I am relying on you to push for this.

Political group: PPE-DE