Mr President, I would also like to welcome all our new colleagues, and I hope that they will also become involved in this complex report. I would like to thank all my colleagues who have been involved in this subject and who will be involved in it in the future. Particularly everyone who took part in the working party in order to find a compromise. I would in particular like to thank Mr Papayannakis for his excellent co-operation, and I would like to thank the Commission and the Council for the abundant information they have provided and the considerable co-operation they have offered. This is perhaps the most complex subject, both from a legal and a political point of view, with a total of almost 900 amendments – if I include all the committees' amendments – which were then reduced to about 75 in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. We have voted on these. There are once again 108 amendments before us in the plenary session now, with the necessary split votes. This will mean that we will have a long hard session in front of us this afternoon, but I think that it will be worthwhile. I would just like to briefly outline the background. I think that this report has prestige written all over it. First we had the Exxon Valdez and the Erika and then the Prestige, but the report also has political prestige written all over it, and has had since 1976. If you go faster than you are actually able to, you will not achieve anything. That is my position. So you have to try and make rules that are workable and realistic. The conflict in competence between the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy and the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market was the starting point of political sentiment in particular. I believe that if liability regimes were not even to be dealt with in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market any longer, we might as well abolish it and set up one committee, the Committee for ‘All Affairs’. It could have 626 members, and possibly even 735 after next year, and then I know for sure that we would never get out of it. Because of the conflict in competences, the subject has become controversial and heavily charged, one in which everyone wanted to stake their own political claim with a view to political profiling. That was a pity, because it has meant that up to now it has been virtually impossible to arrive at compromises and to create broader support. I ultimately decided on an approach that was considered on the basis of all the amendments submitted and that does not specifically favour industry and does not specifically favour the environment. I have tried to find a balance that will make a new piece of legislation – because that is after all what we are talking about – workable and implementable, one that will ultimately be able to develop into a piece of workable legislation that will result in a preventative approach to the environment and will ultimately protect the environment. I also think that it is important to create a level playing field, because I believe that environmental legislation is part of our economy. The first compromises I suggested were based on this. For example, I said that the legal basis should be Article 175. Every Member State is developing its own system, and based on the best examples in the market, the Commission will be issuing harmonised draft legislation on environmental protection throughout Europe in five years’ time. In this way we will get a level playing field, we will avoid environmental dumping and we will avoid a situation in which there will ultimately be 25 different legal systems which will definitely do nothing to promote the internal market nor protect the environment. I understand that there are a number of countries, including my own country, the Netherlands, that will always want to go a little bit further. That is fine, and I think that that should be allowed. On the other hand, I think that it is better that those countries that do not go as far should be brought up to a higher level, which will be ultimately better for the environment in absolute terms. If we apply Article 95, therefore, it will be easier for the European Commission, as the watchdog of the Treaty, to bring those parties who do not comply with the rules before the European Court of Justice, thus ensuring that the environment actually benefits from this legislation. In my initial proposals I opted for mitigating factors instead of exemptions, and I think that that was a good thing. I linked liability for risk with state-of-the-art defence as a mitigating factor; 100 % mitigation would mean that the judge could decide not to hold somebody liable. Unfortunately we were not able to achieve that. The scope: I mentioned sites, habitat and species protected under Community legislation, and sites protected under national legislation. I said that this should be complementary to all international conventions so as to ensure that there would be a level playing field and a comparable liability regime in that area too. Unfortunately we were not able to achieve this. I was isolated in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. Nobody, neither on the left nor on the right, would support me. In order to ensure that we could deal with this here today, I looked for and found support in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. That means that I had to tone down my original suggestions somewhat, but ultimately I am particularly happy with what the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market has adopted, and I will support that. I therefore also support the amendments that were submitted and that were based on my initial compromise amendments. I hope that we will have a favourable vote, and I welcome the challenge of being able to continue to play a prominent role in this difficult matter at second reading. (Applause)

Political group: ELDR