2. Support for the Special Court for Sierra Leone
President
The next item is the debate on six motions for resolutions concerning support for the Special Court for Sierra Leone.
Corina Creţu
author. - (RO) One of the problems affecting justice systems in many countries around the world is not so much the absence of a well-structured legal framework, but more particularly the lack of enforcement of the judgments made by the justice system. In countries afflicted by the scourge of civil war, a permanent state of conflict or massacres, the consequences of this situation are catastrophic from a humanitarian and development perspective.
In the case of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, it is all the more important that legal judgments are enforced because this court is establishing a series of important precedents in international law. It is not only the first court of this kind set up in the same country as where the events being tried took place, but it is the first which has indicted and convicted, in the person of Charles Taylor, the former president of Liberia, an African head of state still in office at the time when the trial started.
These aspects, combined with the recent conviction of three former rebel leaders from the civil war period, are strong indications of the determination of the international community and Sierra Leone Government to fight hard against the feeling of impunity displayed by those who have committed atrocities for an entire decade.
The international community must fully complete the implementation of the project proposed for reinforcing the process of justice and law in Sierra Leone. The Court's mandate comes to an end soon, in 2010, and the Sierra Leone Government has been totally frank about not being able to ensure that the sentences passed will be enforced.
It is vital therefore for the European Union and its international partners involved in the peace process to uphold and support the enforcement of the sentences passed by the Special Court. It is not only the progress towards peace and stability in the region which depends on this, but also the credibility of the Special Courts set up with the support of the international community in other countries.
Charles Tannock
author. - Mr President, international humanitarian law is a relatively new and somewhat imperfect body of jurisprudence, but it has already achieved some major successes. In Europe the International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia has paid an immensely important role in bringing justice to a region torn apart by a series of savage wars. Similarly, a tribunal in Tanzania has been prosecuting those responsible for the Rwandan genocide of 1994.
We therefore know the potential of such courts to help war-torn regions by ending a climate of impunity and moving on. In many ways justice delivered in this way is as valuable as financial assistance from the European Union. That is why the international community should continue to support the Special Court for Sierra Leone by providing secure jail facilities in the Member States, if necessary and when required, for jailing convicted tyrants.
One of my proudest achievements in this Parliament was my role in this Parliament's resolution calling for Nigeria to hand over Charles Taylor to the Court, which is what eventually happened through the mediation of the UN. But there are plenty of others who will escape unpunished without a robust and well-funded special court for Sierra Leone.
Mikel Irujo Amezaga
author. - (ES) Mr President, two years ago I had the opportunity, as part of a mission headed by Mrs Isler Béguin, my colleague, who is in the Chamber here, to visit Sierra Leone, to attend the Special Court and to become aware of the huge task that it was accomplishing, not only for Sierra Leona, but also for mankind as a whole.
The Special Court for Sierra Leone has of course set a precedent, as has already been mentioned here. It has set a precedent in that, as the resolution states, it is the first international court to be funded by voluntary contributions, the first to be established in the country where the alleged crimes took place and it was also the first court - as has already been pointed out - to indict a former head of state.
For all these reasons, not only because it constitutes a precedent, but also because it is a benchmark for other courts that have been created and modelled along the same lines - such as the courts of Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia, Cambodia or Lebanon - we consider it vital that this resolution, on which we have now been working together with the court for several months, be adopted.
Two years ago we adopted a resolution to support its funding, since at that time the Special Court was going through a difficult period, was without any funds and did not have the necessary support - and here we should thank the European Commission too, which gave the court its financial support.
Now we are asking, above all, for two things: firstly, that those who have been convicted should serve their sentences - what is at stake here is not the operation of the Special Court, which will conclude its work next year, but the legacy that it is to leave us - and, secondly, obviously, that all this should be accompanied by more funding.
In short, the Special Court for Sierra Leone is a fine example and a benchmark for all of us and for all courts that have dealt with war crimes. It is a fine example and a benchmark and it is a lesson being given to us by the second-poorest country on the planet: as we entered the court, we saw the slogan 'no peace without justice'. That is exactly why we have a moral obligation, not only as Europeans, but as human beings, to ensure that the legacy of this Special Court leaves its mark on history.
Erik Meijer
author. - (NL) Mr President, Sierra Leone, like its neighbour Liberia, has been faced with full-scale atrocities, as a result of which many citizens lost their lives or became seriously injured, mentally or physically.
The criminals who got child soldiers to cut off the limbs of innocent citizens should be punished and not be given an opportunity to repeat their crimes. It looks like the attempt to organise this punishment between 2000 and 2010 is set to fail. The UN's Special Court for Sierra Leone is unable to function. Anyone found guilty cannot be locked up in Sierra Leone for any decent length of time.
The question now is what can we still do to guarantee a better outcome? The Court will not succeed without external funding, an extension of its mandate or without prison places outside of Sierra Leone. The resolution is right to draw attention to these options. This statement must lead to measures quickly. Otherwise it will be too late.
Filip Kaczmarek
Mr President, in Poland we sometimes say that 'what you begin, you should also finish'. This is very relevant to today's debate, which, above all, is about financial support for the Special Court for Sierra Leone. It is true that we are in the middle of a crisis, and the Court, which is maintained from voluntary contributions made by various countries, absorbs large sums of money. We must not, however, allow this body, which is the only one of its kind, to end its work in international disgrace - and it would be a disgrace, if for financial reasons the Court ceased to function and the accused were released.
The European Union, and especially, in my opinion, the United Nations, are obliged to carry the work of the Court through to completion, to ensure financial support and to carry out the sentences handed down by the Court.
The work of the Court and its high costs are the subject of much controversy in Sierra Leone itself, because a great many people there are waiting for compensation, and Sierra Leone is one of the world's poorest countries. This is why, when judging the past, we should not forget the future.
Ewa Tomaszewska
Mr President, the Special Court for Sierra Leone has sentenced Issa Hassan Sesay, the Commanding Officer of the Revolutionary United Front, to 52 years' imprisonment. It has also sentenced Morris Kallon, one of the commanders of the RUF, to 40 years' imprisonment, and Augustine Gbao, responsible for security in the RUF, to 25 years' imprisonment.
They organised one of the most cruel rebel movements of modern times. Drastic mutilations of the civilian population, and in particular amputations of limbs on a massive scale, sexual violence as a weapon, enrolling children in the army - these are only some of the brutal methods used by the RUF, which was commanded by the defendants.
A heavy sentence in their case is a strong signal which should restrain others from committing similar acts, and a sign that the civilised, democratic world will not stay silent, and has a strong tool for reacting to the perpetrators of such atrocities. That tool is the Court, and the Court should be supported, both financially and politically.
Marie Anne Isler Béguin
(FR) Mr President, I am in fact glad that this debate is taking place, because we have been trying to put it on the agenda for several sittings.
So today, not long before the end of this mandate, we would really like to stress that Sierra Leone, one of the poorest countries in the world, which has really succeeded in establishing this Special Court to try those responsible for the atrocities, should be supported.
Having been the head of the European Union Election Observation Mission in Sierra Leone, I really believe that it is our political and moral responsibility to support this court, because it would be truly unacceptable and unimaginable for this court to be unable to continue its work for what are potentially financial reasons.
I therefore urge the Commission to support it, financially, of course. Moreover, at the time the judges of these courts asked us to provide financial support to help keep this Special Court going.
However, now it is at political level, because it is coming to an end in 2010. We must...
(The President cut off the speaker)
Antonio Tajani
Vice-President of the Commission. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the European Commission has made a strong commitment to assisting the transition by Sierra Leone from a post-war situation to a situation of growth and development. The Commission certainly supports the country's commitment to the consolidation of peace, stability and, above all, democracy.
In this regard, the Commission recognises and welcomes the vital role that the Special Court for Sierra Leone has played and continues to play within the context of the reinstatement of peace and stability in Sierra Leone. We are convinced that the Special Court's activities can transmit to all the message that no serious crime against humanity, no genocide and no war crime will remain unpunished.
The Special Court for Sierra Leone has, in fact, played an essential part in the development of international law, by virtue of the case law that has been created on issues such as the recruitment of child soldiers and forced marriages, which were the subject of the Special Court's first judgments. To this end, the Commission has been supporting the Special Court's activities since 2003. We have given the Special Court EUR 2 700 000 through the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights. The aim of this funding is to support the activities of the Special Court on communicating its objectives of promoting the rule of law, international humanitarian law and human rights in Sierra Leone and the region of western Africa as a whole.
Furthermore, in 2008 the Commission adopted a project, funded by EUR 1 million, under the 10th European Development Fund, conceived together with the Special Court and the Sierra Leone Government. The project, which is to be carried out during 2009 and 2010, will integrate previous activities and sets out to ensure a lasting legacy on which to rely after the conclusion of the Special Court's activities, in particular through the capacity-building of legal professionals and the strengthening of institutional capacity within the Sierra Leone legal system as a whole.
Having been informed of the Special Court's budget problems, in 2008 the Commission provided it with emergency aid to the tune of EUR 2.5 million, funded from the Instrument for Stability and intended to cover the funding costs, and chiefly the salaries, of the Special Court's employees. On this point, the Commission was pleased to learn that the Special Court has managed to cover the budget deficit for several months. We are confident that, despite the world financial crisis, the international community will manage to find the resources necessary for the Special Court to carry out its tasks successfully and in full, and to complete the trial of Charles Taylor, former president of Liberia.
Before I conclude, I would like to express my support for the request for further examination and investigation into the roles and functions of the various special courts, and on this point I am pleased to inform you, on behalf of the Commission, that two initiatives are to be funded in this sector under the human rights 'conflicts and security' heading within the Seventh Framework Programme on research.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place today at 12 noon.


Framework decision on combating racism and xenophobia (debate)
President
The next item is the report by Martine Roure, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, on the proposal for a European Parliament recommendation to the Council concerning the progress of the negotiations on the framework decision on action to combat racism and xenophobia.
Martine Roure
rapporteur. - (FR) Mr President, the European Union is based on humanist values, of tolerance, multiculturalism and protection of fundamental rights. We share strong values that should be protected. The fight against racism and xenophobia is one of our priorities, but we must bear in mind Article 10 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is devoted to freedom of thought, conscience and religion while respecting the inalienable right to freedom of expression, in accordance with Article 11 of this same Charter.
The Commission presented a proposal for a Framework Decision on racism and xenophobia in November 2001, in order to bring closer together the legislative provisions of Member States in relation to racist and xenophobic offences and to fight more effectively against racism and xenophobia in Europe. Until now, and despite an initial opinion issued by the European Parliament in July 2002, this Framework Decision has been at a standstill. In spite of the efforts of several Presidencies, Member States have still not been able to reach an agreement on the definition of punishable behaviour and the level of corresponding penalties to be imposed. It is, therefore, absolutely essential to have a European instrument that makes it possible to combat racism and xenophobia.
Recent statistics show that racism and intolerance are on the increase. The growth in extreme right-wing parties in Europe and, unfortunately, within our own Parliament, obliges us to strongly condemn any speech that incites hatred. This Framework Decision obliges us, however, to find a fair balance between freedom of expression and sanctions for offensive behaviour. The freedom to mock and criticise certain excesses, be they political or religious, are necessary in all democracies.
The European Council has finally come to an agreement on this subject and we are pleased about this. Indeed, the European Union must spread a strong political message to fight against public expressions of racism or hatred. We cannot allow ourselves to fail again on a text that is symbolic for the European Union. I should like to thank the German Presidency for this strong message, which confirms that Europe is not just a great market, but is working for the defence of the fundamental rights of all European citizens. This new compromise is the fruit of long and difficult negotiations and we are aware that, of necessity, it has its weaknesses.
Nonetheless, I want this political compromise to constitute a minimum level of harmonisation that will allow Member States to go further in future, and I am particularly pleased by the addition of a review clause which will make it possible to achieve a higher level of harmonisation in future years. Having said that, in order to compensate for these weaknesses, I call on the Commission to present in parallel a proposal for a directive on the fight against all the forms of discrimination listed in Article 13 of the Treaty, in order to strengthen European legislation in this area. I know, in fact, that Mr Špidla is working towards this, I think. I hope that we shall soon have a proposal for a directive.
Finally, this political agreement on the framework decision has brought about substantial changes in the text in comparison with the Commission's first proposal on which Parliament gave its opinion. Consequently, Parliament should be consulted again in the next few weeks. We will issue our opinion quickly, you can be sure of that, because we have all worked hard for several months. We are all set.
This instrument is absolutely necessary for us to live in a world at peace, in which everyone is respected with their differences, beliefs and ways of life. This instrument is essential if we are to put an end to hatred and racism in a united and fraternal Europe.
Franco Frattini
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank Mrs Roure for her speech and for her report. The political agreement reached at the Council last April, after five years of negotiations, was certainly highly significant.
This agreement, albeit on a less ambitious version of the framework decision than the Commission's original proposal, in fact ensures that from the moment the framework decision enters into force and is transposed in each Member State, there will no longer be any safe haven in Europe for those who incite racial hatred, racism and xenophobia. This represents a political success.
I appreciate that the text of the framework decision contains penal provisions that could have been much harsher. I would have preferred stricter legislation. However, as the rapporteur has just said, we had to accept a compromise because, it being a framework decision, the principle of unanimity meant that we could not set our sights as high as we would have liked to.
Nevertheless, for the first time we have a common rule, stipulating that behaviour inciting hatred or discrimination based on race, skin colour or religion must be punished with criminal sanctions in all Member States. Consider how important it is to punish behaviour inciting anti-Semitic or Islamophobic hatred at a time in which we are talking about integrating immigrants from outside the European Union into our communities.
One of the main issues has certainly been to find the balance between criminal punishment for such behaviour, which is not free expression of thought but concrete incitement to commit violent acts and must be punished as such, and due respect for freedom of expression. We have worked hard on this aspect and I believe that the final result is satisfactory.
The measure is not intended to punish ideas, but behaviour inciting other people to commit criminal acts, to attack, to wound, to kill and to commit real acts of violence. All this has absolutely nothing do with freedom of thought. We are not punishing ideas, but those who, on the basis of a mistaken, if legitimate, idea, move from this idea to behaviour inciting others to attack and to commit criminal acts. This is the boundary between freedom of expression of thought, which must be safeguarded, and concrete incitement to violence.
This is why I believe this decision to be significant. It is for this reason that we have established the principle - which is highlighted in Mrs Roure's report - by which a racist motive shall be considered an aggravating circumstance in all offences. If an ordinary offence involving physical violence is committed for racist motives, it must be more severely punished, since not only incitement as such, but also racist motives, make a given offence more serious than the act itself.
This is an important principle, and I believe that the fact that all 27 Member States have accepted it unanimously puts the European Union in a better position to uphold this key value listed in the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
Patrick Gaubert
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I wish first of all to apologise for Mrs Esteves, shadow rapporteur for my group, who unfortunately will not be able to take part in this debate.
I thank Mrs Roure for her work, her application and her perseverance because, yes, perseverance was needed to keep on demanding that the Council reach an extremely necessary agreement. More than five years of negotiation to reach a proposal for a framework decision on racism and xenophobia: is it really reasonable to have stalled for so long measures that are so fundamental to the lives of our fellow citizens?
I should like also to warmly thank the German Presidency for succeeding in breaking the deadlock on this text. The European Union is founded on communities with values, universal values of human dignity, freedom, equality and solidarity. By uniting, we have all decided to share those values.
Ladies and gentlemen, declarations of good intentions are not much use, if they are not followed up with strong actions. That is why it was necessary to act, to act practically, so that intolerance, in all its forms, should no longer poison our continent. Harmonisation of the legislation of Member States in relation to offences of a racist nature was vital. Henceforth, every Member State will have to make it an imprisonable offence to publicly justify, deny or crudely trivialise crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, and I am satisfied about that.
Nonetheless, I will not hide from you that my satisfaction is not absolute: yes, the adoption of this text sends a strong signal, especially in this European Year of Equal Opportunities, but I am afraid that its added value may be minimal. In fact derogations are anticipated and flexibility accepted. Therefore, behaviour will be penalised only if it could incite to violence or hatred towards a group of people. How, then, is it tolerable for a revisionist to be able to express his views in some European countries in the name of freedom of expression? Freedom of expression stops when the rights of others are flouted. I completely understand that there are different cultural and legal traditions in our Member States, but the fight against racism must not be the subject of any compromise. Tolerating certain expressions of hatred is, in actual fact, accepting them.
Ladies and gentlemen, as elected representatives, we shall have to be clear and condemn forcibly these acts of violence. We must remain vigilant because our fight in defence of human rights and for respect for the Charter of Fundamental Rights is far from over. I ask you, tomorrow, to vote very broadly in favour of this text. This battle is ours. It is an honour to our European democracies and an honour to our Parliament.
Emine Bozkurt
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (NL) Mr President, I am not only indebted to Mrs Roure for her report, it also receives my unqualified support. Racism is a persistent and growing problem in European societies. This is why more and better instruments are needed to address it, including at European level, should this prove necessary. As racism knows no boundaries, neither should measures to address it therefore.
Last year, my resolution on racism in football met with overwhelming support in this House, and I hope that this will also be the case for Mrs Roure's report tomorrow.
In the resolution on football, we called for a tougher approach, but a European stand on racism should not confine itself to football alone. Europe must promote the safeguarding of equal treatment for all its citizens. This is why proper education is needed, as is Europe's active commitment in favour of social inclusion in a bid to isolate those advocating racism and xenophobia and to strive towards a tolerant and diverse society.
I am pleased that hate crimes are being highlighted in particular in Mrs Roure's report. I also endorse the appeal not to introduce a hierarchy among the different grounds for discrimination. All forms of discrimination, including Islamophobia therefore, should be addressed in the same tough way.
The report mentions 9 million victims of racism and xenophobia. This is probably an accurate figure, but as I see it, 494 million citizens are the victims of racism, because if racism goes unpunished, then this has a damaging effect on society as a whole. Europe is there for everyone, and we should, above all, keep it this way.
Sophia in 't Veld
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, first of all I would like to pay my compliments to Martine Roure, who has once again done a great job. I would also like to commend the German Presidency for having secured this deal, but again I note with deep regret that the Council is absent during this important debate.
However, I am very happy that this legal instrument has finally been adopted. It is long awaited and very welcome, but now much depends on whether and how it will be used in practice, because a legal instrument making hate crimes a criminal offence is only the last resort. A legal instrument will not eliminate racism. Only our own attitude and our own mentality can do that, and we need much more than just this framework decision.
We need to promote equality, respect and tolerance, and that should be more than just words. Each of us has a responsibility in Europe. Legislation is not enough and we should lead by example. I very much concur with Mr Gaubert, who made reference to statements by people in public. That does not just apply to the average citizen but, even more so, to prominent politicians and religious leaders - in short, opinion leaders. It is therefore regrettable that even prominent people in Europe have recently made statements that incite hatred and violence. They contribute to a climate of intolerance and hatred. I refer, for example, to the President of one of the Member States, who made very denigrating remarks about Roma people. It is unacceptable and I think that Parliament at least should speak out against such unacceptable statements.
I am also referring to a Member of this House, Mr Giertych, who issued an anti-Semitic leaflet. Fortunately we reacted very strongly to that. I am also thinking of Mr Wilders in my own country, who made the most outrageous remarks in a debate yesterday, to which nobody reacted. That is another problem: we allow these extremists to set the political agenda. Even the mainstream parties have adapted their language to the language spoken by extremists. So we should look very carefully at our own statements and our own behaviour.
Finally, I very much agree with the call for the legislation to be extended to cover other groups, because we all know that hatred and violence against homosexuals is rampant in Europe, even in my own country, unfortunately, as it is against women. Sometimes we tend to forget that, but there are many statements that somehow seem to make violence against women acceptable. The next step should be to create a legal instrument that condemns incitement to hatred and violence against all groups of society.
Jean Lambert
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur for her commitment on this ongoing dossier, which should have been on the statute books before now. As others have said, we also think that action is important.
Last year, we saw a rise in anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim hate crimes in many parts of the European Union, or at least those parts which record such crimes effectively. As others have said, it is the European Year of Equal Opportunities for All and many of our citizens, residents and visitors still face discrimination and hate crimes simply because of the colour of their skin, their beliefs or because they have committed the perceived crime of being foreign. The Director of Human Rights First stated that 'victimising one member of a particular group threatens all members of that group and causes immeasurable harm to society at large'.
My group sees this framework decision as a complement to existing legislation, but we also want to see existing legislation fully implemented. We support the call to be reconsulted on this dossier, and we have some concerns, for example that provisions for mutual assistance between Member States have been removed, which may make it more difficult to combat cross-border racism. We know that there is significant international organisation, for example, among groups based on despicable concepts of racial supremacy.
We have co-signed the constructive amendments to this report. Other amendments represent to us part of the problem, but we look to the Council for constructive and forceful action in conjunction with Parliament.
Giusto Catania
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank Mrs Roure for her persistent work with the Council in putting together this framework decision. It has taken a long time, but we can say that we have at last reached an important milestone.
It is quite right that we should combat racism and xenophobia with legal instruments, but I think that above all we must implement widespread cultural action. I believe that this Parliament also has the means to initiate an effective information campaign in Member States, to ensure that this framework decision can be organised into a great cultural battle of ideas.
I believe that it is necessary to fight against racism and xenophobia, because the data provided by the European Monitoring Centre are alarming. There are increasing reports of racist and xenophobic behaviour, and it is my belief that we must tackle those who frequently attempt to incite racial and religious hatred. This can be achieved primarily through the media, which are all too often used to communicate messages that are highly dangerous for society.
I believe that the initiative adopted by the Council, but above all the work carried out by Mrs Roure in this Parliament, will serve as an effective tool for the political efforts and for continuing this work. As Mr Frattini has said, we need to establish the limits within which there is a balance between freedom of expression and the fight against racism and xenophobia. I believe that this is vital and that we need to implement strong political measures and important cultural action.
Laima Liucija Andrikien
(LT) Mr President, Commissioner, colleagues, in the Berlin Declaration adopted on 25 March this year it is stated: 'European integration has shown that we have learned from our history full of bloody conflicts and suffering'. I believe this is so, and one proof thereof is the document we are considering today.
The basic resolution defines the following as crimes: fomenting hatred and violence, public endorsement of genocidal crimes, crimes against humanity and war crimes, and refusal to acknowledge these crimes or immense trivialisation of these crimes. The basic resolution limits itself to crimes perpetrated on the basis of race, skin colour, religion, ancestry, or national or ethnic origin. However, it does not deal with similar crimes committed for other reasons, such as hate and violence against certain people because of their political beliefs, or their affiliation with a certain social group, or the social situation of groups of individuals - for example, the crimes perpetrated by totalitarian régimes.
I think the time is coming for a supplementary document which could deal with fomenting hatred and violence, public endorsement of genocidal crimes, crimes against humanity and war crimes directed against groups of individuals defined by criteria other than race, skin colour, religion, ancestry, or national or ethnic origin, which I have already mentioned. Such a document might address, for example, social situation or political beliefs, refusal to acknowledge these crimes, or trivialisation of these crimes. Criminal responsibility could be laid down in these instances.
The European Commission's initiative in fostering public discussion at the European level of genocidal crimes, crimes against humanity, and war crimes perpetrated by totalitarian régimes and those who endorse them, grossly distort them or diminish them, is welcome and worthy of support. On the basis of these discussions, after two or three years it should be possible to submit another proposal concerning a fundamental resolution on these crimes.
Justas Vincas Paleckis
(LT) Mr President, I congratulate the author of the report, Martine Roure, on her courage, and extra loud praise goes to Germany, which has proclaimed adoption of a resolution on the fight against racism and xenophobia to be a priority of its presidency.
The idea of the European Union is based on tolerance, trust and peaceful coexistence of nations. Unfortunately, in recent times the number of racist and xenophobic attacks is not diminishing; instead it is getting close to 10 million per annum. Racist, xenophobic and anti-Semitic elements are being used not just by extremist parties - even the apparently more stable mass-membership parties and their leaders do not shy away from them. Even in this Chamber and in some national parliaments it is not uncommon to hear speeches steeped in extreme nationalism and xenophobia.
I agree with the rapporteur that in a culture based on rights and freedoms, criminal law is the last resort to be used desirably as little as possible. However, it is inevitable that penal policy will have to be used to tighten up this area. I fully support Commissioner Frattini's opinion that a racist motive in a crime should mean an increased penalty for that crime.
No less a priority is education, likewise dialogue between different religions and cultures, and a measured and thoughtful look at the past. Even when people are feeling their most tolerant, if discussions start about whose tragedy is the greatest and whose pain hurts the most, this is the road to the trampling of tolerance and lack of trust in one another.
For the new countries of the European Union the issue of restoring historical justice is particularly sensitive. The time is coming for an attempt to reconcile the attitudes of old EU members and the new countries to the tragedies and painful events of the 20th century. This needs to be done without some parties feeling a monopoly on morality, able to force their opinion on other nations. The most important aim is not to exacerbate, but to heal wounds, to learn from history and to block the path for any rebirth of racism and xenophobia.
Sajjad Karim
Mr President, whether it is the increase of Islamophobia or the sharp rise in anti-Semitic attacks, intolerance in Europe is on the rise. It is long overdue and more important than ever for the EU to remain firm by adopting legislation to counteract these worrying phenomena. This text does not, in itself, constitute the concrete action needed to address the persistent problems of racism and xenophobia in Europe today. It could be stronger by using the International Convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination as a benchmark.
Secondly, this legislation must reaffirm Europe's commitment to our core values of respect for diversity and intolerance of discrimination, a commitment that must amount to so much more than the sum of the political compromises of the Council's text. In the current political climate, where support for right-wing extremism across Europe has brought racism into the mainstream, moderates must use this legislation and the dialogue that will surround its implementation to take back ownership of the diversity debate. We must rebuild the bonds of trust between divided communities and we must ensure that feelings of alienation are replaced with a much-needed sense of security.
Carlos Coelho
(PT) Mr President, Mr Frattini, ladies and gentlemen, first, I am delighted to say that I share Mr Gaubert's kind words for Mrs Roure. She is an MEP to whose outstanding work we have become accustomed, and she has once again proved this and, as Mr Catania correctly pointed out, her tenacity.
Crimes of a racist nature continue to be a constant, persistent problem in all Member States. The first step must always be that of prevention. It is necessary to try to prevent racism and xenophobia by means of a policy of education as early as possible and by means of political and social discourse aimed at preventing the dissemination of hate and the promotion of xenophobia and racism.
The figures from the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia confront us with this reality in the EU. Whilst it is important to recognise, in legal terms, that the Member States have legal provisions at their disposal, it is also necessary to point out that there are major differences between these provisions, and that harmonisation needs to take place. This framework decision is therefore welcome insofar as it comprises a certain level of harmonisation of the Member States' criminal law and improved mutual assistance in combating racism and xenophobia.
With this initiative, Parliament has presented its recommendations and adopted its positions on an issue on which - let us not forget - it has been much more consistent than the Council.
DanutBudreikait
(LT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Nazism and communism are two banks of one river. Nazism has been studied in detail by academics and politicians; it is well known and condemned by the international community. Germany itself has contributed to this process, understanding and acknowledging its historical mistakes.
We know little about the other bank of the worst crimes of the past century - communism. It is hardly discussed; therefore, its crimes against humanity have not yet been acknowledged on a global scale. About 20 million people died during the Nazi period and the Holocaust; but 100 million people of various nationalities became the victims of communism.
I support the Council's basic resolution and the declaration adopted with the basic resolution, in which the Council condemns the crimes committed by totalitarian régimes.
I invite Member States to continue the work of exposing the crimes committed by communist régimes, assessing them appropriately and supplementing the basic resolution. I invite the European Parliament to initiate discussions about the crimes of communism and to make its own input by acknowledging communism to be a crime against humanity.
Marios Matsakis
Mr President, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Roure, for her excellent report on this important but, it seems, highly controversial subject. It is important since it is estimated that millions of people fall victim to racist crime each year. It is controversial since it involves striking a balance between effective action to combat racism and xenophobia on one hand and respect for freedom of expression on the other.
In fact, the subject apparently seems to be so controversial that the text currently under discussion has been the product of several years of negotiations. This of course begs the question, was it strictly necessary that so much time was and still is spent before arriving at a suitable solution? Let us think of the millions of people who have suffered as a result of this serious time lag. Is the reason for this extreme delay purely technical politics, or even negligent indifference? Or is there some underlying attempt not to proceed speedily as some influential political forces are not so favourable to such action and are themselves bordering on being racist and xenophobic?
Perhaps the Commissioner can reassure that the latter is not the case at all and that my fears are utterly unfounded.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow.
Written statements (Rule 142 of the Rules of Procedure)
David Martin
in writing. - I have become increasingly concerned by the rise of racism and xenophobia across the EU, both in new Member States and established Member States. In a Union which has the free movement of people as a central pillar, this is doubtless an issue which requires Community action. Indeed, initiatives like the European Year of Equal Opportunities, which we are currently in, are key to spreading best practise in eradicating discrimination. It is important that these efforts are redoubled in order to counter the rise in Islamophobia, Anti-Semitism and discrimination against other minority groups, especially those from new Member States. We, as a House, and all of the European Union institutions and Member States must do our utmost to rid Europe of the scourge of racism and xenophobia, and make clear that it will not be tolerated.


Problem of profiling, notably on the basis of ethnicity and race, in counter-terrorism, law enforcement, immigration, customs and border control (debate)
President
The next item is the report by Mrs Ludford, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, on the problem of profiling, notably on the basis of ethnicity and race, in counter-terrorism, law enforcement, immigration, customs and border control.
Sarah Ludford
rapporteur. - Madam President, over the past decade, laws and practices have been introduced enabling the retention and exchange of huge volumes of personal data. Currently the EU itself is proposing a number of measures that facilitate profiling, a technique of pulling together data from various sources in order to make a sort of template against which are identified those people whose characteristics, behaviour or associates seem suspicious and who merit further screening as likely perpetrators of crime or terrorism.
There has also been a move in policing towards a predictive and preventive approach which, while not without value in some circumstances, can lead to repressive measures against innocent people based on stereotyping, often on the basis of race or even religion.
The reason I am concerned about profiling and data-mining is because they depart from the general rule that law-enforcement decisions should be based on an individual's personal conduct. The danger exists that an innocent person may be subject to arbitrary stops, interrogations or travel disruption. Then, if that flagging of them as a person of interest is not promptly removed, longer-term restrictions could follow, such as refusal of visas and entry, bans on employment or even arrest and detention.
In a world of increasing international exchange of data, the identification of someone as a person of security or policing interest, if not corrected, could have not only inconvenient or expensive but indeed appalling consequences. One need only remember that Canadian torture flight victim, Maher Arrar - on whose horrendous experience the film 'Rendition' was based - was picked up due to profiling based on people his brother happened to know; having done nothing himself to merit suspicion, he nonetheless spent seven months in a Syrian torture dungeon.
The report I am presenting to you has benefited greatly from the considerable input of the shadow rapporteurs, whom I warmly thank. It outlines human rights, data protection and non-discrimination standards in an attempt to uphold two basic principles for any profiling exercise to meet: that repressive consequences should be based on individual behaviour, and that the principle of equality under the law should be upheld.
Not all profiling raises legal objections. We are all familiar with thrillers where the psychologist is called in to draw up a criminal profile of the murder suspect; and if a witness gives a clear description, a profile - of a bank robber, let us say: white, male and 30 - it would be nonsense to arrest someone who was Asian, female and about 50.
The most obvious risk of profiling is on the basis of ethnicity or race. If used by police officers as the only basis of deciding whom to stop, search or arrest, it is lazy, misguiding stereotyping, which amounts to illegal discrimination against minorities.
There is much concern about the victimisation of Roma people in this way. In my own city, London, the impact on young black men has led to tougher guidelines and safeguards - none of which, it must be stressed, should impede the intelligence-led investigation of crime.
Besides concerns regarding legitimacy, I strongly question the effectiveness of profiling. To keep looking for suspicious people on the basis of looks or behaviour can distract from the search for those who are really dangerous. There is also the risk of the real criminals adapting to the profile by using innocent-looking people as drug mules or suicide bombers or by changing travel routes away from those monitored.
Counterterrorism efforts focus the spotlight on Asians, especially those of Pakistani origin. Thirty-two per cent of British Muslims report being subject to discrimination at airports. There is a great risk of alienating these people, who may then end up not cooperating with the police, ultimately hindering security.
This report therefore asks for European or national legislation on profiling to be brought in compliance with existing European law and international treaties. If possible, all safeguards for profiling should be drawn together in a single legal instrument.
Besides the legal assessment, further studies should be conducted into the proportionality and effectiveness of profiling. The Fundamental Rights Agency and the European Data Protection Supervisor, in their respective capacities, should play a key role in those studies.
Finally, if profiling is to be used legally and fairly as a means of contributing to the maintenance of security, a coherent and just legal framework must be established.
László Kovács
Member of the Commission. - Madam President, on behalf of the Commission I would like to welcome this initiative by Parliament to bring the issue of profiling, notably on the basis of ethnicity and race, in counterterrorism, law enforcement, immigration, customs and border control, to the centre of attention at European level.
The Ludford report represents a very good platform that contributes further to this issue by launching a broad discussion and suggesting how to tackle this problem. I want to underline that already existing data protection legislation ensures a high level of protection of personal data - including sensitive data such as information on ethnicity or race - and applies regardless of the technology used. Therefore, it is obvious that general data protection principles apply to profiling as one of the ways of data processing as well.
The Commission strongly believes that unjustified or unnecessary ethnic profiling is an unfair and prohibited practice, even when this is done for law-enforcement purposes or in connection with immigration, customs and border control, and is contrary to the fundamental values of the European Union.
Under important instruments proposed by the Commission - like the Schengen Border Code, Eurodac, SIS, VIS - the use of unjustified ethnic profiling techniques is not authorised. For example, as regards border controls, the provisions of Article 6 of the Schengen Borders Code require that border guards execute checks with no discrimination against travellers on grounds of racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief.
I would also like to mention the activities of the Fundamental Rights Agency in this field. The Agency is about to present a good practices handbook for combating and preventing ethnic profiling. The Commission supports the inclusion in the 2010 work programme of the agency of joint training with FRONTEX, where the said handbook could be used. The Commission also supports the inclusion in the 2010 work programme of the agency of a project on implementing Article 6 of the Schengen Border Code that aims at collecting data.
Finally, the Commission welcomes the minorities and discrimination survey that was presented yesterday. The sections on law enforcement and border control provide us with further and recent data on experiences of ethnic profiling. The Commission will, of course, carefully study the results of the Minorities and Discrimination Survey, which will be published chapter by chapter through the year. But already now we can conclude that racism and xenophobia are still persistent phenomena in the European Union and that they affect the lives of members of ethnic minorities.
The Commission agrees with the draft report that processing of data for statistical purposes, including ethnicity, race or origin, could be used to identify indirect discrimination or unjustified law enforcement practices. However, this angle has to be properly assessed. Therefore, the Commission is looking into the opportunity to ask the Article 29 Data Protection Working Party to prepare an opinion on the processing of personal data for statistical purposes, including ethnicity, race or origin.
The Commission is also following closely the activities of the Council of Europe on the draft Recommendation on Profiling. The Commission is about to launch a request to the Council for a mandate to be authorised to negotiate this draft recommendation.
As regards the need for a legal framework to define profiling, the Commission believes that the relevant EU legislation on border management and data protection is adequate to protect fundamental rights. Indeed, it requires that any processing activity has to be grounded on a specific, recognised legal basis and respect particularly the principles of necessity, proportionality, purpose limitation and accuracy. It is subject to supervision by independent public authorities. Currently the framework also contains strict rules relating to the processing of sensitive personal data or automated decisions. All these principles also apply to profiling as one of the ways of performing processing of personal data.
The Commission is committed - and I am personally committed - to fighting racism and xenophobia to the full extent of the powers conferred by the Treaties, and this includes cases where racism comes from public authorities. The Commission is determined to reinforce our policy to fight racism and xenophobia in the Stockholm context, which should include tackling the issue of ethnic profiling.
Again, on behalf of the Commission, I very much welcome the draft report, and I look forward to its adoption in plenary tomorrow.
Claude Moraes
on behalf of the PSE Group. - Madam President, as Socialists we fully support this report and contributed to it because we believe it is the first time in this Parliament that the political, legal and moral debate surrounding ethnic profiling and its effects on ordinary people has been raised properly.
We believe that predictive profiling and data mining are issues which have long been unexamined and I very much welcome the Commission's positive approach to both recognising this issue and understanding the possible indirect discrimination that can be caused by ethnic profiling.
The Socialists hope that if this report is adopted tomorrow and following the upcoming Council of Europe recommendation on profiling, there will be sufficient political impetus to address this issue at the highest levels. Why? For my constituency of London and for myself personally, I can say that I know what ethnic profiling means. It means being stopped and searched regularly because of how you look, rather than being stopped and searched because of proper intelligence, proper policing, with proper procedures put into place.
This kind of profiling is a waste of resources. It does not catch terrorists; it does not catch criminals. What it does is target indirectly or directly those who are vulnerable, who have an ethnic background which is just the wrong background
This can lead - and I think people should understand this - to strip searches and other abuses which we have seen. This report is an important step forward in protecting people against something which so far has been unexamined, but I am glad that Sarah Ludford had now raised it in Parliament and we will fully support this report tomorrow.
Carl Schlyter
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - Madam President, I would like to thank Sarah Ludford for her report. Kathalijne Buitenweg cannot be here, but I will represent her views.
I must begin by asking: what is a terrorist? What kind of feeling do terrorists create? They create insecurity. Terrorists also make everyone vulnerable, and prevent them from pursuing their life as they want to.
Then you look at the anti-terror legislation with profiling and you see it creates insecurity and it creates problems for people living their daily lives. You cannot combat terrorism with anti-terror laws that create the same feelings of insecurity.
I think the European Court has been very clear on this, saying that this should be banned. We can see that it is neither efficient nor legal. The Carter Center in the US has showed it was not efficient. The German surveillance scheme on 18-40-year-old Muslim men in Germany was not efficient. It does not work, and I very much hope that we can take away the last exemptions allowing airports and harbours and so on to use these inefficient methods that make people feel bad.
And how can you say that you will have a high level of protection when people leave CDs with 20 million people's data on them lying in cafés, and when we know how easy it is to hack into computers? I did it myself as a kid actually.
So I think this report is important. The Council needs to adapt its logic and spend the resources efficiently, targeting specific individuals and focusing the time on them instead of going for ethnic registration, which is in complete violation of any human rights standards.
Emine Bozkurt
(NL) First of all, I would like to thank Baroness Ludford for this fine report. The report should have been even stronger, but it represents progress in the debate on this subject.
Sometimes 'profiling' can be necessary, but such cases must be clearly delineated and protected against abuse. The possibilities for storing, exchanging and interpreting information have, in recent years, increased faster than the necessary limits which democracies set for themselves in this regard. The US security services have not gained better or more reliable information as a result of data mining and investigation based on profiling, but instead primarily a heavier workload. A security agent compared it aptly with filling a water glass with a fire hose, in other words, particularly inefficient.
Naturally, profiles based on ethnic origin have been used for years, even if we generally call it by another name. Even I, all of 1.60 m tall, and thus hardly the most threatening physique, have been regularly taken aside at customs. A minor personal irritation, but many people who scrupulously abide by the law experience this inconvenience not regularly, but systematically. Such people get the message from our society that they are always suspect, less worthy and unwelcome. We are not going to catch true criminals, who come from every population group, by this method.
László Kovács
Member of the Commission. - Madam President, the interventions of the different MEPs show the importance of the issue of profiling and the respect of fundamental rights and the attention paid to it by Parliament.
The report gives an excellent picture of the questions raised by the use of profiling techniques, in particular when they are based on ethnicity, race, nationality or religion for law enforcement, immigration or border control purposes.
The Commission follows closely - and will continue to follow - the problems posed by the use of profiling in general and, in particular, in the sectors expressly referred to in the report.
The Commission is currently launching a consultation on the challenges posed by new technologies to data protection. Its results should provide the Commission with elements that will feed its reflection and guide it when dealing with the problems that profiling can pose in the areas of justice, freedom and security.
The recent results published by the Fundamental Rights Agency on minorities and discrimination in the EU, which the Commission welcomed yesterday, show that racism and xenophobia are persistent phenomena in the European Union and that they affect the lives of our minorities.
The Commission has to carefully study the results of this survey in order to decide the way forward. Again, I very much welcome the draft report, and I am looking forward to its adoption in plenary tomorrow.
Sarah Ludford
rapporteur. - Madam President, I very much welcome the Commissioner's positive response. I think some of the things he has talked about will be extremely useful - the Fundamental Rights Agency, guidance on ethnic profiling, the Commission working with the Council of Europe on its recommendation, and the suggestion that the Article 29 Working Party can be asked for guidance.
I would like to push the Commission a little bit further, though, on focusing on the specific problems of profiling. After all, we do have a recommendation on the table for profiling in the context of PNR data, so there are special problems.
I would like to thank very warmly the small but select band of colleagues who have contributed to the debate. I think two things came out strongly: first of all, the fact that so-called 'security' measures can create insecurity and, secondly, that they can be a waste, instead of a targeting, of resources. So we are talking here about effectiveness as well as civil liberties.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow, Friday, 24 April 2009, at 12 noon.


1. Advanced therapy medicinal products (vote)
- Mikolášik report
- Before the vote
Miroslav Mikolášik
rapporteur. - Mr President, as rapporteur I would like to take this opportunity to make a clarification in introducing this report.
I wish to condemn and strongly oppose the behaviour of some of my shadow rapporteur colleagues who, by bypassing the rapporteur and presenting block one as a so-called compromise with the Council, are undermining the role of Parliament.
There are eight political groups in this House, but only three groups - the PSE, ALDE and GUE/NGL - have agreed on these over 70 amendments. We have not been informed by the Council that COREPER has accepted this package. I therefore urge you to vote to reject block one and support block two, which is the result of the work done by the parliamentary committees.
However, at the same time I should like to state clearly that I will listen to the voice of this House, and that as the main rapporteur I will give my definitive support to this proposal.
Dagmar Roth-Behrendt
Mr President, I simply want to stress that I myself, and members of some of the other political groups, used their democratic right to table amendments in due time. I wish to underline that all of the amendments in block one reflect the votes in committee and are in line with an agreement reached in a technical trialogue with the rapporteur, who then decided not to continue with that trialogue. We did not exceed our powers in relation to any of those items and I would propose that we proceed to the vote. I always respect the democratic procedures applicable here.
(Applause)
Before the vote on Amendment 66
Hartmut Nassauer
(DE) Mr President, I do not believe that Amendment 66 is covered by the compromise amendment, and would be grateful if we could have an additional vote on that.
President
According to the analysis that has been done, Amendment 66 is covered by Amendment 127, which deals with derogations for hospitals. Therefore, we believe that matters have been voted on.
Alejo Vidal-Quadras
(ES) Mr President, in order to ensure that the vote runs properly, I would ask you please, when you announce that a roll-call vote is starting, to leave a little more time before closing it, because some Members find it difficult to keep up with your fast pace.
(Applause)
So please allow for a few more seconds between opening and closing the vote. Thank you very much!
Before the vote on the amended Commission proposal
Miroslav Mikolášik
rapporteur. - (FR) Mr President, according to my voting list, we should have also voted on Amendments 24, 35, 44, 45, 61, 62 in two parts and on Amendment 66, which we have not done. I would therefore ask you to put them to the vote, please.
President
These amendments, Mr Mikolášik, have been covered by the first package.


Organisation of the working time of persons performing mobile road transport activities (debate)
President
The next item is the report by Marie Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou, on behalf of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, on the organisation of the working time of persons performing mobile road transport activities - C6-0354/2008 -
Marie Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou
rapporteur. - (EL) Madam President, Directive 2002/15/ΕC really did need revising and, following a report which it was obliged to present, the European Commission tabled suitable amendments to help this industry, in order to safeguard the health and safety of its workers and, at the same time, to facilitate healthy competition. The Committee on Employment and Social Affairs accepted the opinion of the Committee on Transport and Tourism and, despite my recommendation, rejected the Commission proposal; in other words, it did not agree to exempt self-employed drivers from the scope of the directive. I must point out that the 2002 directive made provision for self-employed drivers to be included as of 23 March 2009. Developments are not as they appear in the wake of the impressions and excitement caused by the debate on a directive on road transport.
As far as driving times and rest periods are concerned, there have been significant developments since 2002, because Regulation (EC) No 561/2006, which entered into force in 2007, applies to all lorry drivers and ensures they have suitable driving times and rest periods.
Therefore, to include self-employed drivers in a directive on working time would be to misunderstand the concept of self-employment, because when someone is self-employed, they set their own working time. This would therefore be a serious, harmful action against small and medium-sized enterprises, it would restrict entrepreneurial freedom and we would be helping to create additional administrative burdens. This would set a precedent for starting a debate on the integration of self-employed persons in other sectors, thereby limiting their ability to work as long as they like. This leaves a serious problem: who is self-employed and who is a 'false' self-employed person? It is clear that certain workers claim to be self-employed but are not. The European Commission had proposed that we lay down criteria so that we can distinguish 'false' self-employed persons. However, this would not be possible, because controls are still carried out nationally. If, therefore, European legislation stipulated who was a 'false' self-employed person and who was not, this could not be made visible from national controls. Thus we have the facility now, with our new proposals, to determine at Member-State level who will and who will not be included in the directive on persons performing mobile road transport activities. We also call on the European Commission in our proposals to re-determine the results of the application of the directive. I call on my fellow Members to reject the amendment which aims to refer the proposal back to committee and to support my group's proposals, which are also supported by the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe and the Independence and Democracy Group.
Antonio Tajani
Madam President, honourable Members, you know that road safety is one of the priorities of my work as Commissioner for Transport.
It is also important to emphasise from the outset that, while road safety is of course a key element when discussing an issue such as drivers' working time, our debate today is not about road safety but about social legislation, not driving time but working time.
The question we must answer today is this: should self-employed contractors be subject to restrictions on working time on the same terms as employees? This is something we must look at very carefully, because there are no precedents in European law establishing how long a self-employed person can work for in an office or laboratory.
In 1998, when the Council and Parliament first debated the directive on the working time of mobile workers, the situation in the road transport sector was totally different from what it is today, as the rapporteur, Mrs Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou, said: at the time it was common practice to dodge the rules in force on driving time, meaning that professional drivers spent far too long at the wheel. On the basis of the previous regulation on driving time, introduced in 1985, it was nigh on impossible to control driving time effectively.
In that context, between 1988 and 2002 legislators discussed a Commission proposal aimed at regulating the working time not only of employee drivers, but also of the self-employed. As a result of that discussion, the sectoral directive on the working time of mobile workers was adopted. The hope was to reduce the negative consequences for road safety arising from inadequate driving time rules by extending the scope of the laws on working time to include self-employed drivers.
The problem was not resolved, however, and following a conciliation procedure between Parliament and the Council, the Commission was invited to weigh up the pros and cons of extending working time rules to self-employed workers and thus present a proposal in 2008. The Commission met this request, publishing a detailed study in 2007 that came to the following conclusions.
Firstly, that working time must not be confused with driving time. As far as the latter is concerned, the situation has changed radically. As you know, this House, together with the Council, has adopted new rules on driving time. Among other things, these rules provide for the use of the digital tachograph, an extremely reliable monitoring device, and a specific implementing directive.
The new rules, which have been in force since 2007, apply to all lorry drivers, thus including self-employed drivers. With the new digital tachograph, which records a lorry's every move, minute by minute, a driver cannot drive for more than nine hours a day and an average of 45 hours a week. In essence, it is now possible to monitor the application of these rules much more rigorously than it was in 1985.
Secondly, there are no precedents in Community social legislation governing the work of the self-employed. A self-employed worker cannot in fact be forced to do extra hours insofar as he is, by definition, free to organise his own work as he wishes. What is more, it is virtually impossible in practice to control the working time of this group of people.
Thirdly, the overall balance between the advantages and disadvantages of extending the rules on working time to the self-employed is very uncertain, and it is not possible to demonstrate that applying the directive in question to self-employed drivers will bring clear advantages. Lastly, it is very important to point out that the application of working time rules to self-employed drivers is ineffectual and very difficult to achieve, since these drivers do not have to record their working time for salary purposes, not to mention the fact that the administrative costs of applying such rules would be very high.
Fourthly, one aspect where intervention is needed, however, is that of 'false self-employed drivers', that is to say drivers who are formally self-employed, but in reality are not free to organise their own working activity, because they are entirely dependent on a single company that provides their income and their orders. In social terms, they are vulnerable. Now, in theory, they are covered by the directive, but the failure to apply it means that this does not happen in practice. The Commission's proposal is therefore to step up the implementation of the directive and provide 'false' self-employed drivers with the social protection they need.
At a time of economic crisis, to impose an additional administrative and financial burden on small and fragile businesses, which must face the consequences of the recession, would not send a good message. For this reason, in conclusion, the Commission welcomes the amendments tabled by the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe and the Independence and Democracy Group, which are in line with the Council's common position adopted during the last Transport Council, and, through these amendments, is sending a clear message to the industry: the phenomenon of 'false' self-employed drivers will not be tolerated, and legislators will ensure that the rules are applied throughout Europe.
Johannes Blokland
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Transport and Tourism. - (NL) Madam President, the moment of truth is fast approaching. Tomorrow afternoon, we shall be voting on the report by Mrs Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou. The rapporteur and I, as draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, share the same perspective on free enterprise, and so together we have signed 10 or so amendments that the Council, too, can accept. I am grateful that Commissioner Tajani can support them.
Tomorrow, we shall first have to deal with the amendment tabled by the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs that seeks to reject the proposal. I am still highly indignant about this amendment. Last week, however, this indignation turned to horror when I saw the position paper of the European trade unions. For fear of a stray Romanian or Bulgarian self-employed driver, it dusts off untruth upon untruth to persuade MEPs to vote against the Commission proposal.
The paper intimates that self-employed drivers work 86-hour weeks. Drivers, both employed and self-employed, are permitted to drive for an average of 45 hours per week in a two-week period, as Commissioner Tajani has also pointed out. Are we to understand, then, that they are spending 41 hours per week working on their businesses? Nor does the paper's argument about road safety hold water. There is no evidence of a correlation between road safety and exempting self-employed drivers from the rules on working time; in fact, the reverse is true.
Incidentally, it is clear from the position paper that the trade unions know full well that their position is extremely tenuous. The environment and the internal market are dragged in kicking and screaming to supposedly demonstrate that we should vote in favour of the rejection proposal, when the Commission's very extensive impact assessment shows that the proposal will actually be beneficial to the functioning of the internal market, the transport sector and the environment. That is why, tomorrow, we must vote against the amendment tabled by the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs that seeks to reject the proposal, and in favour of the rapporteur's amendments. I trust that common sense will prevail during the vote.
Finally, I wish to add that I thought the email Mr Hughes sent last Saturday completely inappropriate. Making politics out of the fatalities of ... (The President cut off the speaker)
Eva-Riitta Siitonen
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (FI) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, working time restrictions should not extend to self-employed entrepreneurs and drivers, and, fortunately, both the Commission and the Council have reached this conclusion.
In my country, Finland, a restriction on working time would have a very adverse effect on self-employed drivers. Drivers in Finland tend to be small-scale entrepreneurs. Over half own the vehicle they drive. They therefore do everything themselves: they maintain their vehicles and do their own accounts. Self-employed drivers are already bound by the same limits on driving time and compulsory rest periods as drivers who are employed by someone else. This is important for the future. Driving times themselves should not be extended, but if this amendment by the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance and the Socialist Group in the European Parliament were to enter into force, drivers would not be able to maintain their vehicles or do their accounts during their time off, for example. In any case, how would compliance with such a regulation be monitored?
It is vitally important to aid employment and entrepreneurship during an economic crisis. I hope that everyone will agree with the Commission and the Council of Transport Ministers to keep self-employed drivers outside the scope of regulated working time under this Directive.
Jan Cremers
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (NL) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Socialist Group in the European Parliament considers the proposal for the revision of the rules on working time in road transport insufficiently well thought out and inconsistent. Poor transposition of and compliance with the legislation cannot be a reason to relax the rules. As the Commission says, legislation can be efficient and effective only if it covers all parties concerned.
In questions to the Commission, I have endeavoured to obtain clarity as to what action the Commission plans to take against the use of 'false' self-employed workers. In this context, the intention that has now been voiced in the Council not only to exclude self-employed drivers from the scope but also to omit to take satisfactory action against 'false' self-employed workers finds no favour with the PSE Group.
The activities of both employed and self-employed drivers are equally relevant to their own and to other people's safety. Making a distinction is out of the question in the eyes of our group. I must support the Commissioner: it is not the first time that self-employed workers, too, have been included in the coordination of safety on construction sites in order to guarantee their own safety and the safety of others.
Bilyana Ilieva Raeva
During its last session of this parliamentary term, Parliament must adopt the directive on the working time of mobile workers. As rapporteur for the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, I think that it is irresponsible of us to support the rejection of the Commission's text in its entirety, as was suggested. We Liberals support and firmly stand behind the need for the tens of thousands of self-employed mobile workers to retain their competitive advantage and the purpose of being self-employed.
The current situation is alarming. The current directive removes a fundamental principle of the free market, namely, entrepreneurship and support for it. It is unacceptable for us to treat those working according to a labour agreement on an equal footing with those who are self-employed. Unlike salaried workers, the self-employed work on the basis not of a specified number of hours, but of the goods which they handle as well as the number and type of shipments. Including them in the new directive will actually destroy their entrepreneurial drive.
Legislation stipulating the working time for the self-employed would mark a dangerous, unjustified precedent. There is no similar kind of regulation in any other sector. Adopting such a decision would have an adverse impact on the European economy.
The definition of night work is also of great practical significance. At the moment, Member States can define night time themselves. This enables them to maximise the number of working hours for transporting passengers and goods according to the varying daylight. As you know, night time in Finland is different to night time in Italy. Flexibility helps reduce congestion during peak hours, while also reducing the majority of harmful emissions from traffic.
I would finally like to add that the Liberals, supported by the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats and many other fellow Members, would like to continue the debate on the basic elements of the directive. In other words, we support the flexible, pragmatic position which was approved in the Council and proposed by the European Commission on excluding the self-employed from the directive. I strongly urge you to vote in favour of this.
Sepp Kusstatscher
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (DE) Madam President, the concern throughout the world and all the measures currently being taken to combat swine flu, like those taken a few years ago against bird flu and BSE, are completely out of proportion to the lack of consideration given to the much higher number of deaths on the roads. Forty thousand people die every year on the roads of the European Union. Large numbers of people are injured or permanently disabled. All of this is simply accepted, as if it were an act of God.
Everyone knows that a disproportionate number of lorries is involved in serious road accidents. The main causes are speed, overtiredness and alcohol. This directive is a move towards ensuring that drivers do not become overtired. Not only driving times, which are monitored using the tachograph, but also loading and unloading times should now be considered as working time for everyone. This is the right solution. If a driver has been working for several hours before he climbs behind the steering wheel of a 40-tonne truck, he is already tired and will find it difficult to concentrate. For me it is completely incomprehensible that this regulation should only apply to drivers who are employed by others and are not self-employed. The only excuse is that it is more difficult to monitor the working time of self-employed people. This may be true, but does a self-employed driver present a smaller risk behind the steering wheel when he is overtired?
Stephen Hughes
Madam President, we need to reject this proposal from the Commission for three clear reasons. Firstly, they argue that Regulation (EC) No 561/2006, on driving and rest time, covers everyone and therefore there is no problem excluding the self-employed. This is wrong. Driving time represents only half - on average - of the working time of a driver. Those not covered could indeed end up working 86 hours per week, every week of the year.
Secondly, the hundreds of thousands of drivers driving vehicles of less than 3.5 tonnes are not covered by the Regulation. Worse still, if they are excluded from this directive there will be no limits at all on their working time.
Thirdly, the Commission makes a distinction between self-employed and 'false' self-employed, and says it does this because you cannot inspect or control the working time of the self-employed. If that is so, how will they control the working time of the 'false' self-employed? This is an abdication of responsibility and an open invitation to unscrupulous employers to constantly search for new forms of 'false' self-employment to avoid the law. We need to reject this proposal from the Commission.
Ville Itälä
(FI) Madam President, firstly I wish to thank Commissioner Tajani for having done a really excellent job and who, in his speech just now, very commendably pointed out that this is not about safety and the number of hours spent driving so much as the number of hours spent working.
We have to respect the fact that in Europe there are small and medium-sized enterprises that do their work and create jobs, and this would be a slap in the face for small-scale entrepreneurs, especially in the current economic situation. Two weeks or so ago we had a fierce debate here on how small and medium-sized enterprises keep the entire European economy going. Now we face the practical issue of whether we should support them or not. What Commissioner Tajani stated here is what we should be monitoring and what we need to do to ensure that these self-employed drivers can continue working after the hours they have spent driving.
Antonio Tajani
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to reassure those Members who have expressed concerns regarding the text we are debating. Road safety is definitely not at stake, I repeat, it is one of my priorities to fight to reduce the number of road accidents.
I think we should not confuse working time with driving time. I can well appreciate what you have said: a self-employed worker can work first and then be tired when he gets behind the wheel, but I do not think that a self-employed worker can be controlled in any job. Obviously, the self-employed worker is also aware of what he is doing, he can even load a lorry and wait and rest for two, three, or four hours, and then get back behind the wheel in an excellent condition as regards safety.
It is in fact very difficult to control any kind of self-employed worker, artisan or small entrepreneur. What is more, these are the men and women who represent the backbone of the EU economy.
Having said this, we are concerned with guaranteeing the health and safety of employees and of those workers who appear to be self-employed, but for all intents and purposes are employees. That is why the Commission - and I think the rapporteur shares our position on this - wants to bring the activities of 'false' self-employed workers under legislative control too.
So this is, I believe, an important signal, this legislation meets real requirements, and I think it right to emphasise again how important it is to make further progress in this area. That is why I would ask the Socialist Group in the European Parliament and the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance to reflect on the comments that have been made and to understand that, as far as the Commission is concerned, road safety is and will remain a priority, but that this legislation does not cover that sector, rather it is aimed at better regulating the working time above all of road transport workers, and to assimilate the 'false self-employed' to 'employees' because in reality they are not self-employed workers, but de facto employees.
So then, may I reassure again all those who have expressed concerns, because I believe that the text that may be adopted is a good text, heading in the general direction of the interests of European citizens.
Marie Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou
rapporteur. - (EL) Madam President, I thank the Commissioner for his clear speech and his ex-post clarifications, by which I mean his assurance to the Members that his main objective is road safety and, at the same time, to safeguard the competitiveness of the European economy and support small and medium-sized enterprises. I thank all my fellow Members for their views and I would point out that this is precisely the dialogue that we want to leave open by voting against Amendment 54 rejecting the Commission's proposal. I therefore call on all my fellow Members to reject Amendment 54, so that the dialogue remains open and we can help workers who are being exploited and who claim to be 'false' self-employed persons. We want to help improve employment in road transport with full safeguarding of road safety under the regulation that covers everyone and of working times under the directive before us.
I should like to remind the Members that I have sent them an article from a German newspaper which makes clear from the examples given that the risk during driving is not from excessive work, but from poor use of the time which each person has at his disposal, regardless of whether he is employed or self-employed, which is, in fact, irrelevant. What is important is how each person takes responsibility for his actions and drives in such a way as to behave as a mature person who is conscious of his obligations within society as a whole. We shall not achieve this by raising obstacles to work. In referring to the building industry, Mr Cremers revealed the intention of all those who are supporting these views in the run-up to the elections.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Tuesday 5 May 2009.