Mr President, Madam Vice-President of the Commission, I would first of all like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Sterckx, as all of our colleagues have done in this plenary sitting. I have been a witness to the dedication, thoroughness and desire to gather all the information, seek solutions for the future and find consensus in the debate within Spain on the Prestige. However, allow me to make a few comments. Reference has been made here to the creation of a temporary committee to examine in detail the causes and consequences of the Prestige disaster, dealing with the future and with maritime safety. Reference has been made to the inadmissibility at the present time of investigating this issue and examining it in detail as it violates the Treaties and the Rules of Procedure, even if it is done under the auspices of a temporary committee, when there are legal proceedings underway. We have heard that proceedings are underway in France and Spain, and we know that they are underway in the United States. We are also aware of the will involved, which differs according to the intentions of each person in these types of committees. Here there are Members and political groups whose intentions will come to an end in March 2004, with the results of the general elections in Spain. There are some people for whom the results would end if, were the Spanish authorities to be deemed responsible, they were to obtain compensation as a guarantee, as may happen if it is the Kingdom of Spain. That was not what we were trying to do in this House, however. What we were trying to do was to analyse what happened with the Prestige and determine the consequences so as to enable us to put forward maritime safety measures for the future. That was the context of the report. I would like to recall here the rapporteur’s words during the last debate in the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, where he said that he could not see how there could be a committee of inquiry, that after everything he had studied in drawing up his report and the contributions in the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, it would be difficult to push forward the idea of a committee of inquiry. It is important to recall here the trips, the presentations, the hearings, the documents, etc. We know that in Denmark a pilot detected that the Prestige was not seaworthy and yet allowed it to continue sailing; we know that the classification society had clearly not complied with its duties to inspect the repairs; we know that the vessel had carried out a series of bunkering operations, 174 times, and that it cracked in those same places where it had been repaired. That is of no concern, however. What is of concern is who took the decision and why. Ladies and gentlemen, read the documents. In the report by the Spanish Government, in the hearing attended by the Spanish authorities, in Galicia, etc., only one person is responsible: the Director General of the Merchant Navy, the highest political, professional and technical authority in Spain, and this has been recognised. Moreover, we have the statements from the Brest maritime prefect, where he states that he advised a change of course and that it was impossible for this vessel to enter a place of refuge as it was going to break up. However, ladies and gentlemen, none of this is of any interest. Evidently, we are faced with a political debate that is not searching to clarify the truth. In this case, I am calling for the search for a future, the search for maritime safety measures and not merely an internal debate which, I will say it again, for many will end in March 2004 with the elections. I appeal to Mr Sterckx to seek a formula for consensus where we concentrate genuinely on maritime safety in Europe rather than an internal debate.

Political group: PPE-DE