Mr President, we have already had this discussion so many times in the past. We have achieved nothing so far, and we have been unable to reach agreement within the European Union. That is why I will only believe that there is any point to having this debate today if what we are all saying today, and what the Commissioner has announced here, actually leads to legislation being produced; in other words, if you all go and say to your Heads of Government and Ministers: “you must push this through in the Council of Ministers”. Allow me to say first that what we are talking about is an environmental catastrophe, which also impacts on the economy and threatens livelihoods. So what are we to do now? I have no intention of talking about past events; rather I want to look to the future. What are we to do now? I will tell you a few things we should do. Of course, we need double-hulled vessels. That goes without saying, but it is something that will only work through in the medium and long term. So what do we need to happen immediately? We need technical testing of ships, that is obligatory technical testing every two years, and no ship to be operated without the accompanying certificate. We need this at European level and internationally; we need something like a TÜV, an organisation that undertakes technical testing of motor vehicles in Germany, which is compulsory every two years. If you do not have a certificate then you are not allowed to operate the vehicle. This is what we need for ships. Thirdly, we need to carry out checks on these safety and insurance certificates in the ports, that is in every port of the European Union. Any failure to produce these certificates must lead to the ship being laid up and prohibited from leaving the port, regardless of all the port charges. We must reach agreement here, in all the European Union’s ports, from Marseilles, through to Rotterdam, to Wilhelmshaven, Cuxhaven, and wherever ships drop anchor. Fourthly, we need the shipowner to bear liability, and not just to the tune of a derisory USD 12 million, but to the value of at least USD 400 million, to be covered per insurance certificate. We also need the country whose flag the ship flies to bear liability. We need to be sure that if need be, the country whose flag the ship is flying will accept liability. This would be a marvellous exercise in supervision! I can assure you that those countries awarding flags would then take great care to avoid having to accept liability. In the fifth place, we need there to be a guarantee that these demands will apply to all ships using the ports and waterways of the European Union, and incidentally, that includes the candidate countries. Last but not least, we need a long memory, for the issue of legislation will crop up on the agenda more frequently in the near future. Environmental standards will be a recurring theme. I would not like to have someone coming and saying that these requirements will lead to job losses in the ports. The unions will have something to say as will industry. A long memory will serve us well, ladies and gentlemen. I am looking at all those of you who have not exactly been at the forefront of the environmental movement. Just you go home and say: “ we have not concerned ourselves with standards to date”. We need to have a long memory when it comes to the demands being made in the ports. We need to have a long memory when we say: “ for once we are united, at last as far as port charges and requirements are concerned, and will not play one off against the other in the European Union.” If we succeed in this then perhaps we will be better off in a few years’ time!

Political group: PSE