During a very tense session of the European Parliament's ‘Transport’ Committee on Thursday 10 January devoted to the social and market aspects of the first mobility package (posting, driving and rest time, tachograph, market access, cabotage), MEPs voted for the report on cabotage, but voted against the reports on posting and driving and rest time.
The atmosphere in the Parliament Transport Committee was palpable before, during and after these votes. First, outside the institution's buildings, drivers and carriers demonstrated to express their demands. Then, in the room itself, the debates preceding the votes no longer seemed to interest most of the protagonists.
In a packed room, the MEPs therefore reinforced the uncertainties surrounding this morning (see EUROPE 12168). They effectively voted against the two (new) draft reports by Merja Kyllönen (GUE/NGL, Finland) on the posting of drivers and by Wim Van de Camp (EPP, Netherlands) on driving and rest time. On the other hand, they voted in favour of the draft report by Ismail Ertug (S&D, Germany) on market access and cabotage.
As a reminder, there are two sides to this issue: on the one hand, Western European MEPs are in favour of harmonising social and market rules and, on the other hand, Central, Eastern and Peripheral European MEPs are in favour of further liberalisation in the sector.
The start of the voting session was disrupted by speeches from several Members. Kosma Złotowski (ECR, Poland) was the first to ask for the vote to be postponed. But it was Marian-Jean Marinescu (EPP, Romania) who was the most insistent, citing a lack of translation of the alternative compromise amendments into all languages to justify postponing the vote. Karima Delli (Greens/EFA, France), chair of the Parliament's transport committee, rejected her proposal.
The voting was then able to begin in the order we indicated in our last issue. With regard to posting, Mrs Kyllönen's compromise amendment was first rejected (26 votes 'against', 21 votes 'for'), before all alternative compromise amendments were rejected.
It should be noted that alternative compromise F, in favour of applying the posting rules to all international transport and cabotage operations, thus in the direction of Western European MEPs, was narrowly rejected (24 votes 'against', 22 votes 'for'). The German EPP voted against this compromise. Members from Western Europe regretted their choice, since a vote in favour of the latter alternative compromise would have tipped the balance in their favour. The ENL Group also did not participate in the vote on this point, although a vote by its members could have changed the direction of the decision. "Defender of the workers in Paris, but gravediggers of their interests in Brussels!” said Renaud Muselier (EPP, France) in reference to the Rassemblement national’s attitude.
Despite the preferences of several MEPs, the other two draft reports were put to a vote. As as result, Mr Van de Camp's text on driving and resting time was rejected, as were all the alternative compromise amendments, by a generally large majority.
Finally, the members of the ‘Transport’ Committee voted collectively in favour of Mr Ertug's compromise amendment on market access and cabotage. The adopted text is in line with what the German MEP had put forward on 20 December, before the Christmas break, at the same time as the other rapporteurs (see EUROPE 12164).
Procedure. In procedural terms, the situation is now uncertain for Parliament. The ‘Transport’ Committee coordinators met after the vote to decide on the strategy to adopt.
But it seems that the political groups need time to think internally, and the coordinators are expected to meet again on 21 January. Some MEPs would like to stop working on these issues, while others want to obtain an agreement.
The initial objective of the MEPs was to vote on the texts today in order to submit the reports to the plenary session next week. This would have made it possible to start interinstitutional negotiations ('trilogues') with the Romanian Presidency of the Council, after the Member States agreed on these issues on 3 December last (see EUROPE 12152). But this will not be the case, particularly for the text on cabotage.
However, the texts may be on the table at the Parliament’s plenary session in February, or even at the mini plenary session on 30 and 31 January. The texts on posting and driving and rest time would then be put to a vote on the basis of the Commission's proposals (see EUROPE 11799), to which amendments would be presented.
Uncertainty therefore still persists with regard to Parliament, seven months after a rejection in plenary session of the three draft reports that had already been voted in the ‘Transport’ Committee (see EUROPE 12055, 12034).
Reactions. Several MEPs reacted to this voting session. While no one expressed satisfaction with the absence of a vote on this package, comments were made about specific points.
"Good news for road transport employees: the Transport Committee refused to endorse the exploitation of road sector employees advocated by the two rapporteurs”, said Mrs Delli in response to the votes on posting and driving and rest time.
Kathleen Van Brempt (S&D, Belgium) said she was satisfied with a vote against "eliminating the rights of lorry drivers".
"The balance is not always easy but in the cabotage report we show how many loopholes can be closed in order to avoid abuses, such as creating fake letterbox companies to avoid fair salaries for drivers", Ertug said.
Martina Dlabajová (ALDE, Czech Republic) said that “the vote on transport rules is [was] a great disappointment".
"The 'mobility' package is not a package anymore!” […]. “Uphill battle still continues”, said Roberts Zīle (ECR, Latvia). (Original version in French by Lucas Tripoteau)