Mr President, it is a striking coincidence that this afternoon should find us discussing air and maritime safety. Only this afternoon, Mr Pex, together with Mr Doorn and Mrs Plooij-van Gorsel, three members of the Dutch delegation, boarded a small plane whose brakes failed and which subsequently collided with a hangar, as a result of which he cannot make it here on time. I have been asked for that reason to present his contribution to the House. When I therefore talk about 'me', I am talking on behalf of Mr Pex, who, incidentally, is doing fine. It is of major importance that the discharge of oil at sea should be prevented. Disasters cause significant discharges, which are, with good reason, given a great deal of attention. Illegal discharges, however, from vessels other than tankers, also constitute a major problem, especially because they occur frequently and are rarely traced. In the few cases when discharges are traced, there are very few prosecutions, and hardly any punishment. That is a perplexing situation. The draft directive that is currently under discussion should rectify this situation without delay. There are sufficient rules internationally to address the situation. The problem is, however, that Member States flout the rules to which they have committed themselves in treaties. The solution is to include internationally valid discharge regulations in Community law and make provisions for enforcement rules. Infringements must be given the character of offences in respect of which it must also be possible to prosecute according to criminal law. Further to the disaster involving the Prestige, Heads of Government have asked on two occasions, namely on 21 March and 13 December of 2002, strict measures to be introduced before the end of 2003. The Commission submitted a sound proposal on time, which I – Mr Pex – have been able to correct with the help of fellow Members from the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, along with the co-advisory committees via a number of amendments. I thank the Commission and the fellow Members for the pleasant collaboration. I would like to make a few observations regarding the proposal. The European rules must apply to all illegal discharges on inland waterways and at sea, both inside and outside of the territorial waters. It is important not only to be critical vis-à-vis the shipping crew, but also mainly vis-à-vis the ships' owners and the authorities on land. A common European coast guard is desirable in order to trace discharges more effectively and for the authorities to act more quickly and more adequately. For both this coast guard and the already established European Maritime Agency (EMSA), it is important to have sufficient powers to enhance safety at sea. Ten amendments have been tabled in respect of the text of my report that has been approved by the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism. Of these ten, I am happy to adopt the two technical amendments tabled by Mr Sterckx, because their intention is to clarify the text. As I have already stated, the introduction of criminal sanctions is a good instrument. Unfortunately, the self-same Council that requested them, is now not prepared to accept this proposal, because it is believed that criminal law falls within the remit of the third pillar. Although I as rapporteur have tried to work together with the Council, because the prompt introduction of the measures is conducive to safety at sea, the Council cried off. It appears that in those circles, discussions of principle take precedence over safety at sea. In other words, the Council's conduct leaves something to be desired. The Heads of Government who have asked for measures on two occasions should take action to make swift introduction still possible. It would be preferable if this were done now rather than when a new disaster occurs, which Heaven forbid. On behalf of Mr Pex, I am able to say: ‘I have spoken’. IN THE CHAIR: MR COLOM I NAVALVice-President

Political group: PPE-DE