Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, before assessing the reports, please allow me, as a European and as a Galician, to convey to you my great concern over the worst marine disaster that Europe has ever known. The largest reserve of fish and shellfish in Europe – and possibly even the world – is being ruined by an accident which we all had a duty to prevent. The scale of the tragedy we are facing is as yet unknown. The entire Galician coast, one thousand kilometres, is closed to fishing and shellfish-gathering. Scenery of unique beauty, national parks, the Natura 2000 network, the entire marine ecosystem and our great wealth of biodiversity have all been ruined. We are facing a European problem, which requires a European solution. A Member State, and in particular a region, in this case, a disadvantaged, peripheral, objective 1 region that lives principally from the sea and associated industries – involving 54 of the 62 economic sectors contained in Community input-output tables – over 10% of the gross domestic product, such as tourism, etc., are significantly affected. We feel impotent in the face of this situation, and we are asking Europe and the Member States for help. Help us, help the Galicians. Last summer, when we saw the powerful State of Germany literally flooded by its overflowing rivers, we all joined forces to create a European Solidarity Fund. Here today, in the European Parliament, we are asking for this Fund to be mobilised as a matter of urgency in order to help Galicia. This is no time for legal pedantry; we must mobilise the Fund. I would like to reiterate the statements made recently by the Galician Government: the European Union cannot merely be a dream of unity, but must also be a genuine source of solidarity that supports each and every one of its citizens at times of misfortune in any country, whether in the North, the South, the East or the West. Europe will become a reality when it is sensitive to the problems faced by its citizens. Let us all start working together, side by side. We have created a European Maritime Safety Agency and we do not know where it should be located. Which European region is most vulnerable to maritime accidents? Which region has suffered the most accidents? Which region has the greatest natural fish and shellfish resources, that must be protected? Which region is most dependent on these resources? Which region could be the most aware and most motivated to welcome and work towards maritime safety? We in Europe must leave behind politics with a small ‘p’ and pointless discussions. Europe owes Galicia a debt. Galicia is the answer to these questions and Galicia must be the proposed location. We are unashamedly promoting our shipbuilding industry and constructing double-hulled oil tankers that will ply the seas more safely, following the example of the United States. We are creating maritime corridors for dangerous goods, as France and Spain have already proposed. What we should do urgently and immediately is help those who have lost their livelihood and restore the environment. We should therefore make aid from all the Structural Funds more flexible and mobilise the Solidarity Fund. In the short term, however, we also need measures such as those that I have just mentioned. I shall end, ladies and gentlemen, with the slogan that thousands of Galicians adopted at a mass demonstration last Sunday: ‘Nunca mais’ [‘Never again’]. Mr Fischler, we will talk about this matter on Monday 9 in the Committee on Fisheries, since, as spokesman for the Group, I have asked for it to be included in the agenda. For now, I would ask and invite you to visit Galicia in order to see the situation for yourself, as well as how we have been affected by the disaster, in terms of both fishing and shellfish-gathering. Let us now talk about fisheries reform. What we need to scrap, Commissioner, are not fishing boats, but old oil tankers. The Prestige has caused more damage to fishing than the entire European fishing fleet put together. Let us stop being hypocritical. When will we assess the damage caused to fishing by other activities? Why can a boat 12 metres long receive funding, while a boat of 13 metres cannot? Do you not know that the most serious problem is fishing in breeding areas? Both large and small boats can do that, and small boats may even be more likely to do so. CFP reform would not require the use of funds; it would, however, affect access, but the FIFG was not specific, and certainly not across the board as the Commission claims. As your colleague, Mr Barnier, said – and this is written in black and white – you lack the legal and moral basis to reform the Structural Funds now. Why can the agriculture policy receive subsidies that represent 50% of the EU budget – and can receive them until the year 2013 – and, on the other hand, the subsidies that were supposed to be granted until 2006 for the CFP, which does not even receive 1%, must be withdrawn now? Are you forgetting the agricultural surplus? And yet, we have a deficit of fisheries products. The fisheries sector is not asking for more money, but only the amounts that were promised, under the promised conditions. This is what we are asking for, with increased monitoring, as stated in the reports I am presenting to Parliament, with greater transparency, being fair to the Member States that fulfil the fleet reduction objectives and not treating them the same as those States that fail to meet their objectives. In 2004 or 2005, we will have to reform the Structural Funds. We shall see then whether all aid must be stopped. We must analyse the matter. If it stops, it will have to be stopped for all, but for now we want the plans laid down to be fulfilled, and we want the European Union to have a renewed, modern, safe fishing fleet in 2006. It is not a case of more fishing, but of better fishing, monitoring resource conservation by means of total allowable catches – which were designed for that purpose, as well as quotas and technical measures – selective fishing, biological recovery periods, the fishing effort, regulating days at sea, and also, with scrapping, but as an additional measure, not the only one, because it is the only measure that is irreversible. With every boat we scrap, we are destroying jobs, and this must be taken into account. We must make the conservation of fish compatible with the conservation of fishermen, and at difficult times, such as Galicia is going through at the moment, and may go through in future, we must not increase the fishing effort, particularly not in Community waters; it is possible to cooperate with the development of third States while maintaining our employment and supplying our markets. That is the promotion of ship exports and the creation of joint enterprises. Unless this happens, we will be encouraging fishermen, at difficult times, to sign on with illegal fishing boats sailing under flags of convenience, which we must prevent. I have therefore accepted my fellow Members’ amendments, which enrich my reports, in order to provide increased monitoring and greater transparency in fleet policy. I myself have tabled two amendments along the same lines, to make it clear that we are not trying to increase fishing capacity in any way, and which are also aimed at achieving coherence with development cooperation policy. I would now just like, therefore, to thank all the Members who have worked on this matter and tabled amendments, for their cooperation. I would now like to say, not only as rapporteur for these reports, but as I said at the beginning, as a European from Galicia, to all those who do not fully agree with these reports, that I have tried to draft them as honestly as possible and with as much dedication as I could, which was a great deal, and ask them not to vote against these reports. I would be grateful if you would at least think about it and consider abstaining. Lastly, I would like to thank and congratulate my colleague, Mr Jové Peres, on his excellent work in what were – as our chairman Mr Stevenson has acknowledged – difficult conditions, racing against the clock, with a certain amount of pressure and a great number of misunderstandings. Lastly, I would like to express my solidarity, naturally, with Mr Stevenson, over his oral question. Thank you all very much.

Political group: PPE-DE