Mr President, in its Resolution of November 2002 and following the sinking of the Prestige oil tanker off the Galician coast, Parliament called for the Council and the Member States to speed up the application of the measures adopted within the context of the Erika I and Erika II packages, such as the introduction of double hull vessels. We therefore welcome the draft Regulation presented to us by the Commissioner, but we still feel that the gradual introduction of double hull vessels by the Union is an insufficient, if necessary, measure. So far nobody has explained to us the percentage reduction in maritime accidents depending on whether the vessel is single or double hulled. Nor has anyone explained what percentage of vessels involved in serious maritime accidents recently had double hulls. We believe this is a good thing and we are prepared to support the Commissioner in her personal crusade, but we do not want to fail to see the wood for the trees and we do not believe that double hulls are the solution. If only they were, Commissioner. Although they are not the solution, we do feel they offer advantages which, in our opinion, have not been emphasised enough. Two such advantages are that double hulls force us to assess the condition of our fleet and also force us to renew it. Increasing maritime safety involves financial costs. That is another matter that we feel is somewhat lacking in the Commission proposal – a little more clarity with regard to funding. We still think, however, that, although age affects the general condition of a vessel, all the experts emphasise that maintenance is a better determining factor than age. Like so many European citizens who have approached us, therefore, we believe that double hulls will only be effective if accompanied by the corresponding investment in improving the current system of inspections and penalties, which obliges vessels’ owners to invest in their maintenance and in improving the social aspect in this sector, as we sometimes have the impression that the Commission would like to tiptoe around this issue. In this regard I would pass on to the Commissioner the question on everyone’s lips: why, in disasters relating to the maritime transport of fuel, are the regions worst struck by this kind of tragedy those that are most closely linked to the sea, relying on commercial, fishing and naval construction ports? In both Brittany and Galicia the shipyards have all but vanished, leading to industrial desertification of entire areas, and yet, the way things are, it does not seem as though these shipyards are going to benefit most from this Regulation. Korean shipyards, which are more competitive and have no problems regarding compatibility and State aid, will benefit most. This means that public opinion has the impression that the Commission is being inconsistent. Yes to double hulls, therefore, but only if the requirements and quality of renovated vessels comply with European construction quality standards, environmental standards, social standards and quality standards. I would also ask whether Korea meets these requirements, which are increasingly compulsory for our European citizens. What is a dirty vessel? Will we find, due to the application of this Regulation, some recently built dirty vessels with double hulls?

Political group: PSE