Mr President, Commissioner, this problem is double-edged. We should certainly not discourage maritime transport: it is en environmentally-friendly form of transport and economically vital. But we should, at the same time, control the risks involved. We should regulate traffic better, if I can put it that way, for each accident at sea not only affects those directly involved, namely the people on board the ship, but also anyone living by the sea and making a living from it. After the accident involving the Erika, we took rapid action. However, new accidents have kept the pressure on, and we therefore have no choice but to take measures. I should like to thank the Commission for the excellent cooperation, as well as the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, as a result of which the latter is able to submit to you a unanimous proposal. First of all, shipping must be monitored more closely. In this connection, we need to extend the powers of the coastal state and the port state, and restrict the right to clear transit – albeit to a minor degree. We must not forget that the Erika foundered 70 km off the Breton coast, in other words, a long way from the territorial waters. Secondly, we must introduce automatic report duty via transponders. On that score, I have developed the Commission proposal in a little more detail. I believe it is also necessary for the information which then comes in automatically, also to be exchanged between the different Member States automatically. That happens far too little at the moment. We must legislate for that. We should extend the scope of the transponder, which is 30 nautical miles at the moment, as soon as possible, and switch to what is referred to as long-range. Thirdly, the black box. That is a difficult point which has been mentioned in the report by Mr Watts, and which has indeed remained more or less unresolved. In my opinion, we as a Parliament must continue to exercise pressure on the IMO, and we should therefore adhere to our time schedule. Fourthly, the ban on departure in adverse weather conditions proposed by the Commission. Admittedly, bad weather was a major factor in past accidents, but we in the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism do not support the general measure proposed by the Commission. Sometimes, in bad weather it is safer for ships to be outside, rather than inside, the port. Each port or each ship is different. Neither should we forget that the captain is in charge of his own ship, and we should respect that. That is why we have made that recommendation for a ban on departure more detailed, or at least slightly changed it into a recommendation which must receive a reasoned reply from the captain. We request that, in bad weather, station tugs be on stand-by which, in an emergency, could be deployed immediately, so that no time would be lost when something happened. There are examples of this in France and in the Netherlands. Environmental risk should not be the only reason for action. As other MEPs have already pointed out, risks involving people, crew and passengers, inter alia, merit action. I have added a provision concerning fuelling at sea, which is also a difficult operation. It is dangerous. In April of this year, for example, there was a collision off the Belgian coast between a bunker ship which was refuelling and another ship that was being refuelled. A relatively small quantity of oil, namely 10 000 litres, ended up in the sea, as a result of which the coastal area near Middelkerke, Nieuwpoort, etc was polluted, with all the disastrous implications that this entails. Statistics have shown that the number of accidents involving bunkering operations is rising enormously and rapidly. We must therefore do something about this. One of the options is to restrict bunkering, and even ban it in bad weather. We have added a provision to that effect. Fifthly, ports of refuge. That was a problem with regard to the accident involving the Erika. The Erika searched for a port of refuge and could not find one. Earlier this year, the damaged fuel tanker, Castor, sailed around the Mediterranean Sea for six weeks because it could not find a port where it could berth. That is, of course, understandable, for a port could, in a case like that, run the risk of being polluted, and it is not certain that compensation would be provided for that damage. We must therefore set up a true system of ports of refuge and safe ports of anchorage where damage can be limited. We welcome this proposal, although we have tightened it up slightly. We must be certain that the ships which call in at our ports and sail along our coasts are insured, and therefore solvent. In other words, they must be able to pay compensation for the damage they cause. We must also ensure that there are installations there to receive, repair, etc. ships. All in all, Commissioner, I believe that this is a promising draft for a sound directive, and we must adopt it at the earliest opportunity. Since there are a number of aspects which can develop very quickly, we have added an evaluation clause. The proposal will now be presented to the Council. I hope that the Swedish Presidency will be able to deal with the matter later on this month. However, I fear that the proposal will end up with the Belgian Presidency. That being the case, the latter will need to prioritise this issue and ensure that it is completed at least by the end of the year. Despite this, there are a few matters left to deal with, even though we have approved all the Erika Directives. For example, we should take additional measures to extend the routing system, in the Baltic Sea in particular. It is necessary to develop that system and especially to invest in people, people on board ships, people on shore, people who implement the checks and people who make up the ships’ crews. To underline this aspect, we have included it in the Directive, for a piece of legislation in itself is not sufficient. The real safety work is done at sea.

Political group: ELDR