Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, ladies and gentlemen, I personally have been following this matter very closely from the start, as I, and many others like me, experienced this disaster as an attack on Europe. Ten months on, we are debating the resolution which is the result of the investigation carried out by our fellow Member Dirk Sterckx. It is a thorough investigation, as he even went to speak to the captain of the Prestige who was not, let us remember, permitted to attend the hearing of the transport committee. I was on the fact finding mission to La Coruña and Brest. I would like to mention that there were very great differences in the openness shown by the various maritime authorities concerned. Openness is evidently still a difficult issue. The resolution provides a clear analysis of the facts that resulted in the Prestige disaster. It clearly sets out a number of actions which the European Union will have to undertake. It mentions the difficulties, such as port state control, and provides a good analysis of the necessary environmental measures. I would therefore like to congratulate the rapporteur on the work he has done. I and my colleagues in our group are satisfied with the result. As the Council and the Commission are dealing with what is written here meticulously, the call ‘nunca mais’ (never again) will be heeded. The work of the Commission shows that the message has been received. The European Agency for Maritime Safety is being given the mandate and the resources to act. The resolution also indicates the limits of the procedure to be followed, however. My group was initially unhappy with the procedure that has been followed in this matter. From the start we have argued for a parliamentary investigation committee or a temporary committee which will ‘get to the bottom of the matter’. How unfortunate that expression sounds in this context! The facts that have come to light over the past few months are confirmation for us that we were on the home stretch. Now we have new arguments. First of all, there is still a lack of clarity regarding who was responsible for the decision to tow the ship further out to sea and for the inadequate dispatch of emergency assistance. Statements from the French parliament reveal that France was also involved in sending the Prestige into Portuguese waters. These facts reopen the whole discussion. The debate on the way in which we in the European Union make arrangements and take decisions about cross-border emergency situations. Secondly, we can only now begin to assess and calculate the overall extent of the economic and ecological damage. Only now, after the summer, can estimates be made of the damage to the tourism sector. I was in Galicia this summer and I saw that there were fewer foreign tourists on the coast, that blobs of oil were being washed up on to the beach every day and that there were still rocks hidden underneath the oil and there were still no warnings about pollution from the ever-present people from the Environment Ministry. Finally, the establishment of a Temporary Committee on the Prestige is a matter that also affects the credibility of our institution. I personally find it extremely inappropriate that some representatives of the Spanish Government appeared as witnesses in the French parliament, but are not attending the hearings in this Parliament. The International Maritime Organisation did not feel obliged to appear before the European Parliament either. They evidently think that that is beneath them! This cannot be permitted, something must be done about this! The quickest route to further investigation is the compromise amendment that Mr Sterckx himself submitted in this regard. Our group will support this. In doing so we are sending a signal to the Commission and the Council that we are closely monitoring what they are doing, and that this Parliament is itself playing an active role in maritime safety.

Political group: Verts-ALE