At the end of an eventful and surprising voting session, the MEPs meeting for their plenary session on Wednesday 4 July rejected the three reports as amended on the social and market aspects of the first mobility package: postings, resting/driving times and cabotage. The dossiers will now be sent back to Parliament's transport committee.
This soap opera did not, ultimately, come to an end at this plenary session. Although the votes on the three sensitive questions in the first mobility package have been more than uncertain over the past few days (see EUROPE 12053), there was no question, in principle, that the three amended reports would be rejected.
After a first controversial vote during the transport committee on 4 June (see EUROPE 12034), followed by a rejection of the inter-institutional negotiating mandate (‘trialogues’) with the Council of the EU during the 14 June plenary session (see EUROPE 12041), this new voting session will have effectively had the effect of sending the texts back to the transport committee.
Surprising votes. The voting session began with the most emblematic report on the application of posting rules in the transport sector drafted by Merja Kyllönen (GUE/NGL, Finland). Following on from two other questions, this appeared to be the subject of most opposition between MEPs from western Europe, who support the harmonisation of social rules and MEPs from central, eastern and peripheral Europe, who are in favour of internal market liberalisation. The main political groups are also divided. Although, surprisingly, an amendment submitted by EPP MEPs from central, eastern and peripheral Europe to apply posting rules for international transport operations as from 11 days of work in the same member state had been voted for (by just two votes), the final text was rejected by a significant majority (286 votes for, 390 against, 9 abstentions).
The second text on resting and driving times for lorry drivers was submitted by Wim Van de Camp (EPP, Netherlands). It should be a recalled that the key questions focused on possibly taking regular weekly rest time (45 hours) on board the lorry and the greater flexibility introduced to this rest time. Although a two week reference period that only allows for taking reduced resting time (24 hours) a fortnight had been voted for, the MEPs also voted against taking regular resting time in the vehicle. This amended report was, however, also rejected by the MEPs by a significant majority (229 votes for, 422 against, 30 abstentions).
Finally, the last text submitted by Ismail Ertug (S&D, Germany) on access to the lorry driver profession and cabotage was also subject to all the different incidents that had accompanied all the other votes. The essential point on the rules for cabotage did not obtain any consensus and all the amendments proposed were rejected. The amended report itself was also rejected (103 votes for, 551 against, 29 abstentions), particularly after Mr Ertug had asked his group to oppose it.
Same thing for concluding the dossiers? After these rejections, the three rapporteurs successively requested that the MEPs vote in favour of sending back the dossiers to the transport committee under the terms of article 59, paragraph 4 of the internal Parliament regulation, which the MEPs effectively did.
The renegotiation of the Parliamentary committee texts does not bode well at all, however, with regard to the finalisation of the negotiations on these very politically sensitive dossiers. Although the discussions at the Council have effectively stalled (see EUROPE 12036), it now appears impossible that the trialogues can be finished under this parliamentary term.
Mixed reactions. Some heated responses greeted these votes. Karima Delli (Greens/EFA, France), the chairperson of Parliament's transport committee, said “This return to scratch means that MEPs have to assume their responsibilities and go beyond purely national deductive reasoning”. She also said that she was “relieved by the reversal that took place” compared to that of the transport committee's position.
The divisions within the groups themselves were also borne out following the rejections of the reports. Franck Proust (EPP, France) effectively claimed “a victory for our businesses and lorry drivers", while Renaud Muselier (EPP, France), called for new rapporteurs to be nominated who, “respect the geographic and political balances in the Union”. Mr Van de Camp (EPP, the Netherlands) regretted that lorry drivers' working conditions “will remain unchanged for the next 5 or 10 years”.
The Belgian Socialist delegation referred to a “wasted opportunity” with regard to the “real advances for workers' rights” that had been proposed.
Martina Djalabová (ALDE, Czech Republic), claimed that a “negative signal” had been sent out to Europe, while Dominique Riquet (ALDE, France) regretted that “nothing was moving” on this dossier.
Marie-Pierre Vieu (GUE/NGL, France) ultimately welcomed, “a great victory… the result of months of struggle and collective action with our trade unions and lorry drivers…”. (Original version in French by Lucas Tripoteau)