Vicky Ford, rapporteur. − Madam President, thank you to everyone who has contributed to this report, including colleagues from many committees and industry regulator and environmental organisations. Offshore sources account for over 90% of the oil and 60% of the gas produced in the EU and Norway. This is the world’s fourth largest production area. Offshore is crucial to meeting Europe’s energy needs and its energy security.

Following last year’s tragedy in the Gulf of Mexico, it has been right to reassess safety regimes. However, much offshore oil development in European seas is off the coast of non-EU countries and it would be unwise if EU legislation pushed exploration out of EU waters into neighbouring areas - especially if a spill could still affect our seas and shores.

Our approach to safety in EU Member States must enable inclusion of neighbouring countries and also recognise that issuing licences is a Member State – and not an EU – prerogative. As with many Parliament reports, this one contains some clear messages, but some of the statements are contradictory and a couple are factually incorrect. Hopefully, we can clarify this in tomorrow’s votes.

All sites are different; not all deep water is dangerous and not all shallow water is safe. A ‘tick-box’ approach to safety allowed the Gulf of Mexico disaster to happen and we must not have the same in Europe. The report recommends a site-specific approach, with authorities and operators working together to address the individual risks of each installation, not only before drilling but at every stage of its working life. This must be backed up by rigorous independent oversight and inspections.

Legislation must not compromise this goal-setting approach or sharing of good practice. Safety is not proprietary, and rapid sharing of information and good practices between operators and regulators is vital, especially in the case of significant incidents or near misses. A true safety culture is one that encourages every worker to put safety first in applying, improving and testing safety procedures. Whistle-blowers must be protected. Inspectors must be qualified and experienced and also understand the specific conditions of each site.

I welcome regional fora that bring together regulators from individual sea areas as well as intra-fora and global coordination, as well as the recent work to build more qualified inspection networks across all seas. However, the report points out that creating a new EU super-regulator would not add value. Indeed, if it drained experienced resources from national inspectorates it could be damaging.

The Gulf of Mexico disaster was compounded by the length of time it took to cap, contain and clean up. Recently there has been substantial investment in capping and cleaning equipment. The European Maritime Safety Agency has experience in monitoring and detecting spills and in the supply of clean-up equipment, so should maintain a log of all public and private equipment enabling its rapid deployment. However, EMSA does not have experience in spill prevention nor the expertise to regulate offshore installations.

If negligence occurs, those responsible should be held accountable, and operators must be financially liable for costs and damage. They could meet this financial obligation in a number of different ways including, for example, mutual insurance funds which work best in individual sea areas. We know that there is currently not an active market for operators to purchase external insurance. Future legislation regarding financial liability should not exclude smaller operators, especially during the exploratory phases.

Finally, a moratorium on new exploration or a ban in the Arctic is not appropriate. Arctic exploration started in the 1920s. I repeat my earlier message: every site, every operation, should be assessed for its specific risks, and informed regulators should only allow drilling if they are comfortable that the risks of that site can be, and are being, managed. This should be the case in the Arctic, and indeed in every sea area.