Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it has been one bit of bad news after the other. First there was BSE and the prohibition of animal meal, and then yesterday a bill banning fish meal was presented to the German Parliament. Yesterday too, we received news from the Commission, borne by three Commissioners who really ought to know better, that the Commission is not prepared to extend aid to the European shipbuilding industry beyond 31 December. What else do we intend to do to ourselves in the European Union? I cannot understand it, and the Koreans must be laughing up their sleeves. By contrast, the Environment and Transport Committees have acted wisely and boldly in dealing with the first ‘Erika’ package, albeit in response to pressure in the wake of the accident. We quickly received the package and discussed it promptly in Parliament, which is a praiseworthy achievement. A second package is already under way. For your part, Minister, I am sorry to say that you have been telling us 'we could...' and have been talking about flags of convenience, black boxes and the like. But why are you not doing these things right now, rather than tomorrow? You said, 'We have the opportunity to improve safety.” So take that opportunity now, Minister, rather than later. Parliament has long been calling for such action. We parliamentarians are certainly not letting the grass grow under our feet. As to the accusation that Parliament has been solely responsible for any delay, I can only say that this is an attempt by others to hoodwink the public and divert attention from themselves and their own failure to deliver. For that reason, we cannot agree to a postponement of the vote. We must send the right signal. The flags are at half-mast already, and I do not expect a rapid result at any price but rather the best possible result within the shortest possible time. The conciliation procedure is an option. It may be a necessary evil, but it is an option, and I hope that all of us will contribute as best we can. We all know each other's positions by now, which is another reason why we need to vote today. As far as the classification societies are concerned, it is my duty and my wish to re-emphasise on this occasion that the main focal point of the present discussion seems to be liability. Everyone understands that. People's futures and the survival of many businesses are on the line here, not to mention the environmental implications. The Commission intends to look at this liability issue again in the second ‘Erika’ package, and rightly so. I am convinced, however, that it is vitally important in the context of maritime accidents to consider the whole chain of responsibility and to examine every aspect of the matter. It is regrettable that nobody is looking beyond the classification societies in the present discussion of the liability issue. This, at least, is the impression that has been conveyed. The spotlight is focused on the first link in the chain of maritime operators without being turned on the liability of the other parties. So this still needs to be rectified. We must have a full picture of all parties' responsibilities and hence of their liability.

Political group: PPE-DE