Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the report we are debating expresses the agreement required from Parliament, as we have just been told, in order for the Member States to establish and ratify the 2003 Protocol to the International Convention on Compensation of Oil Pollution Damage. As has just been explained to us, the Convention created a fund to compensate victims of damage and it should be pointed out that it is funded by contributions from the companies or other entities that receive oil transported by sea. Therefore, increasing the maximum sum of compensation from the current EUR 162 million, as this Protocol requests, is not going to be a burden on public funds, but on those who benefit from the oil trade. Since 1978, the Fund has been used in more than one hundred cases, and in the majority the limit set was sufficient. However, the Commissioner reminded us that the Erika and Prestige accidents demonstrated that the limit was now out of date and needed to be increased. Therefore, in March 2003, following the wave of emotion and concern unleashed by the latter of these disasters, the Heads of State or Government of the European Union asked for the Fund to be increased to one billion euros and, in May of that year, the decision was commendably taken on board very rapidly by the Member States of the International Maritime Organisation. In its Resolution of July 2003, very soon afterwards in the same year, on increasing maritime safety following the sinking of the Prestige oil tanker (the report by Mr Sterckx), Parliament was in favour of the decision by the global organisation and called upon the Member States to ratify the relevant Protocol as soon as possible. This was the first time that they were called upon to ratify it quickly. As we have been told, the Commission not only acted swiftly, but with clear political commitment, by asking the Council to move on from the very easy promising phase to the fulfilling phase, which is always more difficult. Finally, when the situation was becoming quite embarrassing, it secured the agreement from the Italian Presidency, setting a target date, as long as it was possible, which is what the Commissioner has just explained to us. The truth is that the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market unanimously adopted the proposal to ratify the Protocol. In fact it would have been enough to issue the assent, but I felt it was essential to stress the request in Recital C of the Decision, that it is important for the Member States to sign or ratify the Protocol. I must acknowledge that all the members of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market were on this same wavelength. Why? Because, as long as it is not signed and ratified by those Member States, we will remain in the current situation, in other words, with a fund that is insufficient to cover potential compensation. It therefore stresses that the Protocol should enter into force. Parliament wanted to make it clear that, from now on, any delay cannot be blamed on or attributed to the Community institutions. It will be the Member States who drag their feet in ratifying the Protocol who will have to face up to their responsibilities. I would like to think that this will not be the case and that they will all ratify it as swiftly as possible. Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, all that remains – as my time is running out – is for me to thank the members of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market for the support they have given me, this committee and Parliament’s services for their invaluable help, and the Commission for the political support that it has consistently given. The report put forward today is necessary and urgent. I therefore trust that you will vote in favour of it.

Political group: PPE-DE