Common rules for access to the international market for coach and bus services (recast) - Common rules concerning the conditions to be complied with to pursue the occupation of road transport operator - Common rules for access to the international road haulage market (recast) (debate)
President
The next item is the joint debate on
the recommendation for second reading from the Committee on Transport and Tourism on the common position of the Council with a view to the adoption of the Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for access to the international market for coach and bus services (recast) (11786/1/2008 - C6-0016/2009 - (Rapporteur: Mathieu Grosch),
the recommendation for second reading from the Committee on Transport and Tourism on the common position adopted by the Council with a view to the adoption of a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing common rules concerning the conditions to be complied with to pursue the occupation of road transport operator and repealing Council Directive 96/26/EC (11783/1/2008 - C6-0015/2009 - (Rapporteur: Silvia-Adriana Ţicău), and
the recommendation for second reading from the Committee on Transport and Tourism on the common position adopted by the Council with a view to the adoption of a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for access to the international road haulage market (recast) (11788/1/2008 - C6-0014/2009 - (Rapporteur: Mathieu Grosch).
Mathieu Grosch
Mr President, I assume that this is a joint debate on the three reports forming part of the road package.
I should like to thank the Council, and also the Commission staff. The work we have done over the last two years has produced good results.
Road and freight transport within the European area accounts for approximately 75% of transport and employs two million people. Certain new rules were called for in view of the market opening for 25 countries that is planned for May 2009. The Commission proposals were along the same lines.
As regards the report by my colleague Mrs Ţicău - whom, along with all the rapporteurs on the road package, I also wish to thank for the constructive cooperation - it is important that clear guidelines are being laid down on this for transport operators. They must prove their reliability throughout Europe, and must also have a sound financial structure. Transport managers should be able to demonstrate either many years' experience or a high level of training. Serious offences can jeopardise this reliability, which also means that Member States will be called upon to continue to perform checks and punish offences even after the entry into force of this regulation. This is often lacking in the transport sector as a whole.
More than half of Parliament's amendments have been accepted. I shall not go into all of them today, but I should like to highlight one result of the unofficial trialogue that is very important to me, namely the combating of 'letterbox companies'. These lead to distortions of competition and weaken national undertakings. Preventing this form of establishment means preventing social and fiscal dumping, which was also a subject in itself in the road package.
On the subject of market access for buses, coaches and lorries - buses and coaches in particular - this regulation mostly revolved around the '12-day rule', as agreement was reached very quickly on the other points. The reintroduction of the possibility of taking a weekly rest period after 12 days does not compromise safety. The daily driving and rest periods must be observed, and on such journeys drivers will never exceed the permitted daily driving time. In addition, these 12-day trips help European integration and, for many people, are a very economical way of going on holiday.
The discussion on market access was one of the most intense for freight transport, and here Parliament did not obtain everything it wanted. Yet we did reach a compromise, and it was a good one. It seems to me that, particularly for cabotage - three operations in seven days - this compromise is a good starting point. The ultimate aim is to regulate services in third countries and, in the medium term, the cabotage market should be opened. We are awaiting proposals from the Commission on this, as cabotage should also serve to avoid unladen journeys. Nor do we want to interpret the imposition of temporary restrictions on this as protectionism, however. At this particular moment, with social and tax harmonisation in the transport sector completely failing to take effect, it was a very good idea to limit it in order to avoid unfair competition. Yet we should not wait two years before applying this regulation. Six months for cabotage and the 12-day rule should suffice.
I should also like a clear answer from the Commission as to whether countries that have already opened their cabotage markets pursuant to Article 306 of the Treaty will be prevented from continuing to do so under this regulation. I hope that the Commission will make a clear statement today on the further opening of cabotage markets and on Article 306.
Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
Mr President, Commissioner, I would prefer to use five minutes to start with and leave one minute for my conclusions.
The draft regulation sets out the conditions in terms of location, character, financial situation and professional competence which a person must fulfil to be able to perform the occupation of a road transport operator. The regulation which we are discussing has also established the terms under which a company can employ a transport manager, has reinforced authorisation and monitoring procedures, has provided regulations for electronic registers and the protection of electronic data, has dealt with the issue of penalties for non-compliance with the regulation and has set up a system of mutual recognition of diplomas and prior rights.
At first reading, which ended with a plenary session vote in May last year, Parliament insisted that the transport manager have a proper contractual link to the company and imposed an upper limit on the number of vehicles one manager could manage.
Amendments were also introduced to tighten the requirements for the company to have a fixed location. The company's good reputation may be lost as a result of its involvement in human or drugs trafficking.
Parliament has drawn up a list of serious infringements leading to exclusion from the profession in conjunction with removing provisions on minor infringements. Insurance has been accepted as proof of financial standing and the quick ratio of assets to debts has been dropped.
A compulsory written examination in the country of residence has been retained as a requirement to practice this occupation, with the possibility of an exemption for 10 years' continuous practical experience.
Finally, previous rights have been rescinded and the Commission has been asked to report on the likely impact of extending the regulation to commercial transport using vehicles with the appropriate design and equipment, intended to carry up to nine persons including the driver.
The Common Position has adopted in whole or in substance 70 of Parliament's 113 amendments. These include amendments on minor infringements, the definition of the link between companies and transport managers, the right of appeal of those subject to decisions on operating as a transport manager, mutual recognition of certificates, prior rights, the exchange of information between the competent authorities, as well as drugs and human trafficking as grounds for exclusion from the profession.
Concerning the registers, both Parliament and the Council agree on a stepwise approach. In fact, the Commission will define the data structure for national electronic registers by the end of 2009, but the two institutions have proposed different timetables for implementation, with the Council requesting a longer period of time.
There have also been other issues where the Council's initial stance was different to that of Parliament, but after long, fruitful negotiations, an acceptable compromise was reached for both institutions.
As a result, Parliament has accepted a more flexible timetable for implementing and interconnecting national electronic registers (31 December 2012). It has been agreed that major infringements will only be incorporated in national electronic registers after 2015, the limit on the period of validity for authorisation to perform the occupation of road transport operator will be removed, the examination will be retained in the Member State of residence, the structure of the electronic registers will include a public and a confidential section, the references in the regulation's content to restricting licences for accessing the road transport market will be removed, where virtually all the references to the licences for accessing the road transport market are only contained in Mr Grosch's two regulations.
I await fellow Members' comments with interest. Thank you.
Pavel Svoboda
President-in-Office of the Council. - (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, in today's debate I am standing in for my government colleague, the Transport Minister Petr Bendl, who has unexpectedly had to remain in Prague.
I would like to thank you for offering me the opportunity to address you ahead of tomorrow's vote on the road transport package. The Czech Presidency considers the finalisation of this collection of legal regulations to be highly important. The package is important because of the need for a clear and harmonised approach on the current system of cabotage instead of different approaches in the various Member States and also access to the market for transport operators.
With the help and support of the rapporteurs the Presidency has achieved a successful result concerning this important collection of legal regulations. I know that everyone has been working hard towards this result and that everyone has had to make certain compromises. Everyone demonstrated a constructive approach in negotiations in order to achieve second-reading approval.
The main items arising from our discussions can be summarised as follows: a more detailed specification of cabotage rules, the possibility for drivers engaged in single occasional international passenger transport services to work for 12 consecutive days and tighter controls on transport companies. Now the road transport sector will have a set of simplified rules and control mechanisms for cabotage as well as unified and enforceable provisions on access to transport markets. There will also be clear rules preventing abuse and helping to ensure fair competition, greater efficiency and better controls in this sector.
The compromise on cabotage will make a significant contribution to a more transparent, more efficient and safer road haulage market. It will contribute to further improvements in the road haulage market while at the same time creating a fairer and more transparent framework for the entire road haulage sector. It will reduce numbers of journeys by empty vehicles on EU roads thereby contributing to lower CO2 emissions. The compromise also assumes that Member States will use appropriate safety mechanisms for preventing violations caused by cabotage on the road haulage market. The new rules on cabotage will come into force six months after the regulation is published in the Official Journal. In 2013 the European Commission will also consider the option of further steps relating to opening up the road haulage market and liberalising cabotage.
I firmly believe that the new legal framework for transporting goods and passengers in the EU will make a significant contribution to rapid and sustainable economic recovery. I would like to thank Parliament for its work on securing agreement in the negotiations over this package, and I would especially like to thank the rapporteur Silvia-Adriana Ţicău and the rapporteur Mathieu Grosch, whose hard work and determination have helped to secure a successful result.
Antonio Tajani
Mr President, Mr Svoboda, honourable Members, the Commission cannot fail to be delighted with the compromise reached on the road package, since it enables us to conclude the legislative procedure at a time when the transport industry needs to have simple and effective rules and be set free from pointless red tape.
I have to say that the decision we are taking will also help to make our roads safer, because I believe that whenever we take action in the sector of transport and especially road transport, we must always keep sight of our goal to halve the number of casualties on EU roads. The rules that Parliament is adopting do, I think, help to achieve this objective.
We are also happy because this is another signal the European institutions are sending to citizens on the eve of the elections, and because the legislative procedure can be concluded at second reading, just two years after three major and complex legislative proposals were tabled. They have perhaps made for difficult debate, but at the end of the day institutional and common sense has prevailed, as has the political will to meet the demands of citizens and the transport sector in general.
I would like to take a quick look at the reports we are debating, in order to give some answers to the questions asked by the rapporteurs. I will begin with access to the international market for coach or bus transport services: it is true that cabotage represents a very limited section of the transport business as a whole, but, politically, it is a highly sensitive area. If used in a way that complements international transport, cabotage also contributes towards a better use of capacity and a reduction in unladen journeys, meaning a reduction in the number of heavy goods vehicles on the road - and you will be aware of how many road accidents involve large vehicles. This regulation will clarify the rules on cabotage, which will be applicable - and I refer here particularly to Mr Grosch's comment - in a uniform and non-bureaucratic fashion throughout the EU, without affecting existing cooperation between Member States under Article 306 of the Treaty. Furthermore, cumbersome national procedures still in force will be abolished, in order to enable transport firms to make the best use of the possibilities of cabotage. The Commission will keep a close eye on the evolution of the road transport market and will publish a report in 2013.
If deemed appropriate in that report and if the conditions for fair competition have been better harmonised, the Commission will propose that the cabotage market be opened up further. The Commission has made a statement to this effect, which will be sent to the Parliament Secretariat for inclusion in the reports of this debate. This statement will also be published in the Official Journal, alongside the legislative proposal.
I now come to Mrs Ţicău's work on common rules concerning the conditions to be complied with to pursue the occupation of road transport operator. The Commission welcomes the introduction of a new 12-day rule. This is a tailor-made measure that takes account of the very particular conditions of certain types of passenger transport that allow for a longer period than six days, but do not normally require a large number of driving hours, for example school trips, skiing holidays and certain excursions. The new legislation also stipulates extremely rigorous measures so that road safety is not threatened, I can assure you. There are currently 100 different types of Community licences in force in the EU, which often makes for difficult and lengthy checks. Under the new legislation, there will be just one type and one standard format of Community licence used throughout the Union.
I now come to the third text in question: access to the international road haulage market. In an increasingly open market, we need to harmonise the conditions imposed on the companies that compete in this market. That is the purpose of the new regulation, which replaces a directive and at the same time tightens up the conditions that companies must meet. Each firm will have to appoint a transport manager to be responsible for the efficient running of the business as a whole.
In addition, in order to avoid 'dummy companies', further guarantees must be supplied as regards companies' registered offices. Further still, a new electronic register will be compiled in order to step up information sharing between national authorities and to make controls more intelligent and efficient. This, too, helps to ensure road safety.
Finally, transport businesses are today receiving a very clear message from legislators concerning the more serious failings that lead to licences being withdrawn, for example the repeated cases of tachograph tampering. This is unfortunately a practice that takes place in all EU countries, but the tampering not only constitutes a breach of the rules, it also threatens the safety of those who travel on Europe's roads, as it is clear that tired drivers are not able to respond quickly should problems arise.
That is why I said at the beginning of my speech that the laws about to be passed by this House make a serious and important contribution to our joint battle, as Commission and Parliament, to reduce drastically the number of road traffic casualties. I would therefore like to thank you for your willingness to adopt these laws so quickly.
Let me repeat, this is a strong signal we are giving to European citizens, demonstrating once again that Parliament - and I say this not least because I served in this House for 15 years - has shown great efficiency and seriousness, for which I am grateful.
Georg Jarzembowski
Mr President, I should like to thank the Council and the Commission for their constructive cooperation with our Parliament's rapporteur. As Commission Vice-President Tajani himself said, this is a very good example of how a good result can be achieved in a short space of time even on difficult dossiers.
However, I cannot hide the fact that we are not overly happy with the cabotage regime. As the President-in-Office of the Council - and you, too, Vice-President - mentioned, it is intrinsically better, on environmental and economic grounds, to avoid unladen journeys in Europe. Therefore, it would be better if the cabotage restriction could be lifted altogether sooner rather than later.
As an interim step, we are accepting three cabotage operations in seven days, but we are awaiting your report most eagerly, and hoping it will state that 2014 will mark the end of this restriction. After all, it is a trifling area for the transport sector, but one that wastes money and has adverse effects on the environment. Therefore, I hope that you will present a proper proposal in 2013, as a cabotage restriction is absurd in a European internal market of 27 countries.
I should also like to thank the Council and the Commission for supporting us in the end on the reintroduction of the 12-day rule for buses and coaches. This is very important for the bus and coach industry, which, in many countries, consists of small and medium-sized enterprises, as the introduction of two drivers on such trips - which are mostly for senior citizens - has caused problems for SMEs. We are pleased that this expires in six months' time. It must be understood that there are many people, particularly older people, who do not like flying but would still like to travel as tourists in Europe and perhaps enjoy the sun in places such as Italy or Spain, hence the importance of our reintroducing the 12-day rule for buses and coaches and making it affordable and thus possible for senior citizens to travel. This is a great success for us, for bus and coach companies and for passengers, and so I am much obliged to the Council and the Commission.
Brian Simpson
on behalf of the PSE Group. - Mr President, first of all I would like to thank both rapporteurs for their work on this difficult dossier. It is clear that this package, and in particular the issue of lifting cabotage restrictions, has divided opinion along national lines, but I think what we have before us now is an agreement that we can support.
I had serious concerns about full cabotage delivered in one move without any levelling-up of social costs, or indeed running costs, for individual hauliers. Such a move, I believe, would have had a detrimental effect on the road haulage business, not only in my own country but in other Member States as well. Therefore the compromise introducing temporary cabotage is not only sensible, it is a solution that will be workable, allowing three domestic journeys after one international one. Temporary cabotage also allows us to end the environmental nonsense of HGVs travelling hundreds of kilometres empty, without distorting domestic markets.
Finally, I am also happy to support the new enforcement measures that have been introduced via the Ţicău report. This has to go hand in hand with further market opening, and will allow Member States to practise tough and efficient enforcement measures.
Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (NL) For years, emotions have run high when it comes to the phenomenon of cabotage. Current legislation, as has already been pointed out, is said to be too vague due to the term 'temporary' that has been used. For various Member States this is the perfect excuse to further protect their own market, which is what we have noticed.
To create clarity once and for all, the Commission has asserted that it will bring forward a proposal to solve all these issues. I have high hopes for this. Strikingly enough, though, the Commission has proposed to impose firm restraints on the scope for cabotage. This is striking because the existing rules have all this time been considered an intermediate step towards complete freedom. In 2009, we were supposed to be moving towards complete freedom, according to both the Commission and the Council.
I consider the agreement that is now before us and on which we will be voting tomorrow a huge disappointment. Instead of more freedom, hauliers are faced with more restrictions. Of course we do need a European approach. I too could not agree more. The sector should not have to put up with all kinds of national outpourings a day longer.
This agreement, however, Mr President, is completely at odds with the principles and objectives of the internal market. The arguments in favour cited, such as traffic safety, the environment and a reduction in the administrative burden, hold no water whatsoever. There will not be an actual free market, Mr Tajani, and this whilst every restriction leads to more transport movement. It is anything but workable, Mr Simpson. Working on the principle that something is better than nothing is not an option for the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe. It does not work in this case.
Roberts Zīle
on behalf of the UEN Group. - (LV) Thank you, Mr President. Commissioner, I would certainly like to thank both rapporteurs and all those others who have been involved in finding a compromise, but I would like to say that there are both positive and negative aspects to what we have accomplished. For example, it is a good thing that we have managed, on passenger transport, to reduce the obstacles to transport in districts near borders, where there is an intensive flow of cross-border transport. At the moment, however, when in difficult economic circumstances solidarity is needed, protectionist tendencies can be seen in relation to national markets, and thanks to the concept of 'temporary' use, restrictions still serve as an excuse for many Member States to carry on protecting their domestic markets. Unfortunately, Member States will be able to make use of a safeguard clause that gives them the opportunity to use serious difficulties observed on the national transport market as grounds for approaching the Commission and passing protective measures. In addition, it should be noted with regret that they will also be able to do this after 2014, which was in the European Parliament's original position. I would like to make a similar point about international coach transport too. The provision stating that in the event that international transport poses a threat to the viability of the provision of similar services a Member State may suspend or cancel the transport operator's licence is, in my view, unacceptable in the operation of the single market. Thank you.
Georgios Toussas
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (EL) Mr President, the common position of the Council of the European Union, like the Commission's initial proposal for a regulation, liberalises the national passenger and freight road transport markets and grants international Community transport companies access to the internal markets of the Member States. In fact, it hands international and domestic road transport over to the large monopolies on a plate.
The proposals contained in the European Parliament reports move in an even more reactionary direction. They call for the immediate and full liberalisation of the markets and the removal of all barriers, restrictions and controls. The workers now understand from bitter experience the painful consequences that the charge by monopoly business groups into road transport will have on their lives.
The liberalisation of the internal freight and passenger road transport markets steps up the exploitation of working drivers, who will be forced to drive without breaks and without any measures for their rest and safety, sweeps away their wage, labour and insurance rights, increases the risks to road safety and imposes the concentration of transport among international monopolies, which reap huge profits, with disastrous consequences for the self-employed and small businesses trading in this sector. It results in increased freight charges, a lower standard of service and higher risks to passenger security.
That is why we voted against the common positions and the recommendations by the European Parliament. The working class movement is against capitalist restructurings and calls for the creation of a single public-sector transport market based on the criterion of satisfying modern grassroots requirements.
Johannes Blokland
on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - (NL) Had I predicted around 1980 that the end for the cabotage restrictions would still not be in sight by 2009, there is no doubt that my audience would have had a good laugh at my expense. After all, restrictions of cabotage are, by definition, blatant violations of the rules of the European internal market.
Now, in 2009, we are once again faced with the prospect of going home empty-handed at second reading. Needless to say, I will be supporting the amendments by the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, but as the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats is deliberately refusing to stand firm on this, it is delivering the future of the road haulage sector a fatal blow. I am pleased to see that the 12-day rule has been retained in the proposals, but not that this has been done at the expense of ending cabotage restrictions.
If Amendments 17 and 18 are not adopted, I will be voting against the end result. I refuse to put my name to a proposal that is detrimental to the environment, puts the haulage sector at a disadvantage and is very disrespectful of the workings of the European internal market.
Corien Wortmann-Kool
(NL) I should like to start by saying that the good news in the proposal we are now discussing is that the 12-day rule for bus transport has been abolished.
As far as cabotage is concerned, however, the proposal is downright disappointing. After all, back at the start of the 1990s, and even in the 1980s, it was agreed that this restriction of the free transport of goods would be temporary in nature. That is why we, the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, but also Members of other groups, had submitted proposals at first reading to lift the restrictions by 2014. In recent months, though, it has become apparent that the Member States have been thwarting this proposal, despite the efforts Mr Grosch has made as a rapporteur to have a date on the table after all. The thwarting has been fierce, which is very bad news.
Protectionism in times of crisis is the worst news for Europe, for, as Mr Tajani rightly pointed out, it is a waste of money and bad for the environment. That is why the Dutch Christian Democrats (CDA) will be voting against this proposal, even though we are aware that it is the Member States that are blocking this measure and there is nothing we can do about it, unfortunately. The content of this proposal is both wrong and unenforceable. The legislation is therefore not just bad in times of crisis, it is also symbolic.
I should therefore like to encourage the Commissioner not to leave matters at that, and to take the initiative once more, the right of initiative he has in the next few years to abolish this restriction of cabotage yet. He will be supported by the Christian Democrats in so doing.
Gilles Savary
(FR) Mr President, Commissioner, first of all I should like to pay tribute to the sense of compromise shown by our two rapporteurs, Mr Grosch and Mrs Ţicău, since this is a difficult subject in the sense that, yes, we do want the single market, but the public and company directors do not understand that having the single market at times means that some of them will have to fail, that the economy will have to go into recession and that jobs will have to go.
In the public's eyes, it is only worth having the single market if it puts them in a win-win situation. However, we know only too well today that, on issues such as cabotage, social conditions in the various countries are such that, were it to be systematised, we could, as things stand, see a number of workers from countries with high levels of pay ejected, ousted from the market by countries with low levels of pay.
I therefore believe that the position adopted is ultimately the right one. Cabotage should be liberalised, but it is still too soon to do so suddenly and indiscriminately. Thus, having the notion of consecutive cabotage, with an adjustment that refers us to a rendez-vous clause for a report by the Commission on the social repercussions, and, above all, not having an automatic and indiscriminate date for liberalisation, suits us very well.
That is why we shall vote in favour of this report, while calling on the Commission to be attentive and while expressing the wish for liberalisation ultimately to take place, but not to give rise to unfair competition or social dumping, which do so much damage to Europe's reputation and which, in a country such as mine and no doubt in that of Mrs Wortmann-Kool, prompted the sudden rejection of the European Constitutional Treaty by citizens fearing the loss of their social position. Thus, I am grateful to the two rapporteurs.
Dirk Sterckx
(NL) I should like to thank Mr Grosch and Mrs Ţicău for the work they have done, and I think that Mrs Ţicău is right to be strict about access to the market in her report. If you run a transport company, you have to observe a number of rules and, as Mr Grosch has already stated, PO box companies have to go, as they are the cause of a lot of the abuse that goes on. That is Mrs Ţicău's report, then.
So why can we not give the companies to which strict rules apply a European market to work on? Moving on to Mr Grosch's report, I would have liked to have seen a clarification, not a restriction. As such, the majority of our group cannot endorse the compromise Mr Grosch has struck.
We are actually taking a step backwards, in that we are once again restricting the scope of hauliers within the European market. There is no prospect of an opening up in 2014, as per Parliament's request. The Council disagrees, but I think this is one concession too many. We are, in actual fact, arranging empty journeys for lorries - something which, in this day and age, simply should not be done. I doubt whether those Member States that have now opened up their cabotage markets to each other are still able to do so under this regulation, should they wish to do this on a bilateral basis. I also wonder how Member States that claim that monitoring is difficult will now manage, because it is not that much easier. It is the same in all the countries, but it is difficult to monitor and I should like to see if the police authorities are up to this.
If the cost of wages and social dumping are the reason, why do I not get to see documents in which the French authorities reprimand French customers for using too many Belgian lorry drivers? They are more expensive than the French. Why do I then hear stories of Belgian lorry drivers who, for relatively minor offences, are kept under arrest in the United Kingdom? For there, too, drivers are cheaper than in Belgium. So, if social abuse is supposed to be a reason, it is certainly not the case here.
The upshot, in my view, is that we will be taking a step backwards in relation to the internal market. Tomorrow, we will be approving intelligent transport systems, which means that we are saying that communications technology and information technology lead to more effective freight transport. We then say, though, that we will be restricting this for political reasons. This is very unfortunate and I will therefore oppose the agreement which Parliament will, unfortunately, be approving by a majority.
Michael Henry Nattrass
Mr President, another package of reports to keep EU committees busy, more pollution into a sea of unnecessary regulations. Winston Churchill said if you have 10 000 regulations you destroy all respect for the law. English respect is destroyed. A BBC poll shows 55% want to leave the EU and 84% want the UK to keep its powers.
President Pöttering confirmed the EU makes 75% of the law. In 35 years, that is more law than England has made since King Richard III in 1485. So, here we are, making legislation to correct legislation. Where will it all end?
The UK will leave the EU, be good neighbours and watch you in your sea of regulations from across the English Channel, watching the EU die a death by a thousand self-inflicted truck directives.
Dieter-Lebrecht Koch
(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the road transport package comprises three mutually complementary issues that have an important impact on the freight and passenger transport markets. It will benefit carriers, drivers and users, particularly in the current economic climate. At the same time, it will improve safety on our roads, increase transport efficiency and benefit environmental sustainability.
I welcome the choice of the form of a regulation to achieve our ambitious aims. Bans on cabotage operations result in unladen journeys, which we cannot and do not want to afford, either financially or from an energy or environmental point of view. On the other hand, unrestricted opening of the freight transport market would lead to distortions as a result of unfair competition - which is why this is being tackled gradually. Cabotage is permitted provided that it does not become a permanent or continuous activity in a Member State in which the transport operator is not resident.
Unfortunately, this initial step does not yet represent the full opening of domestic road transport markets, but it does leave this possibility open. Unladen journeys are already being reduced and the environment protected.
With regard to access to the cross-border passenger transport market, the main objective is bureaucracy reduction, in the interests of simple, fast procedures for the authorisation of cross-border regular services. Documents are to be harmonised and checks simplified. I very much welcome the introduction of the revised 12-day rule for organised cross-border coach journeys. This will benefit holidaymakers and bus and coach companies alike, without compromising safety. It is citizen-focused politics.
In future, authorisation to pursue the occupation of road transport operator will be subject to specific, transparent conditions. This will increase the status of the profession, ensure the recognition of professional qualifications and help combat dumping practices. The increase in safety and reliability will be palpable.
Saïd El Khadraoui
(NL) First of all, I should, of course, like to thank the rapporteurs, Mr Grosch and Mrs Ţicău, for the work they have done and for the fact that they eventually managed to thrash out a compromise on the package, one that should not last for more than a few years at the most, as it is merely a transitional measure, in my view. With regard to road transport, there are two important points I should like to make. The first one is, indeed, access to the profession. This has, in my view, been structured in such a way as to ensure that guarantees are in place from those who want to be active in the sector.
Cabotage is clearly subject to some controversy. This is a good transitional measure that was necessary in order to define more clearly what is possible. In the past, it was stated in rather vague terms that cabotage is possible on a temporary basis. This has now been clarified as three times over a seven-day period. It is indeed logical that everything should be thrown open, but the time is not yet right, in my view.
The compromise that is now before us, namely that we review the social situation in the European Union in a few years' time and take further measures as necessary strikes me as a very reasonable proposal. This opening up of the market should go hand in hand with a levelling of the social bar. Meanwhile, it should be possible for a number of countries, or groups of countries, such as the Benelux countries, for example, to agree with each other that things stay the same so that open cabotage remains possible. As long as salary and working conditions are more or less the same, I personally do not have any problem with this, but this is clearly not the case yet across the board, and that is why this intermediate step is necessary.
Ari Vatanen
Mr President, when we leave this place this evening, most of us will take a black car. These are quality cars and quality drivers, and we know that those drivers are very professional. It is a known quality. They meet the criteria.
Although I partly agree with the English gentleman a while ago when he complained about too much legislation - sometimes it is true that we do produce too much legislation - I still regret that EU access to professional rules was not extended to taxis, because we all use taxis in the various Member States and their quality differs a great deal. When you take a taxi, reliability is very important, as is quality: knowing what to expect. It is also a question of safety. You are very often alone in the car in strange surroundings. The taxi is also, for many of us, the first contact we have in a new country, so it would make sense for the drivers to meet certain European criteria. It also means that, if they were professional, well educated and knew where they were going, we would not have to be afraid of overcharging.
There are countries like Germany, Sweden, Slovenia and Finland where the national rules are very stringent on this issue and the taxi profession works well. London taxis are also known for their quality. We should share these best practices. But, in the mean time, while we are waiting for this legislation on criteria for the taxi profession, maybe we should legislate for us to give good tips to those drivers who take us home in the evenings.
Pavel Svoboda
President-in-Office of the Council. - (CS) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank you for the various contributions put forward during this debate. I would like to assure you that the Council is fully determined to strengthen and complete the single market. The Presidency therefore believes that, precisely for this reason, an adjustment is required in existing Community legal regulations. The Presidency also fully shares the aim of boosting the competitiveness of the road haulage sector in the EU by rationalising and simplifying the existing legal framework and thereby helping to curtail market violations. However, opening up domestic transport markets fully would expose our transport operators to unfair competition and would impair the functioning of the market because there are still significant fiscal and social differences between the Member States. This must be avoided, particularly in a time of economic crisis when the economy as a whole requires a careful and considered assessment of the best methods for stimulation and recovery. It is clear that by 2013 at the latest the Commission will assess the situation on the market again with a view to further liberalisation. This compromise version represents a fair and balanced way to combine the various interests.
Our common aim is to make road transport more efficient and sustainable. These legal regulations will make a significant contribution towards reducing breaches of economic competition rules and improving compliance with legal regulations in the social area as well as road transport safety regulations on the part of road transport operators. It will also bring about a significant reduction in the administrative burden both for road transport operators and for supervisory bodies. It should also provide the sector with a legal and administrative framework aimed at deriving further benefits from the common market. I firmly believe that this important collection of legal regulations will support and facilitate road transport and will help stimulate economic recovery. I would like to thank you once more for the excellent cooperation which has made it possible for us to reach a joint compromise on achieving these objectives.
Antonio Tajani
Mr President, honourable Members, I believe that what Parliament is about to adopt is a good compromise, reconciling the Council's demands, the demands of the majority of MEPs and the European Commission's proposals.
Obviously, when a compromise is needed, each must take a step back so that others can do the same, and I therefore think that Mr El Khadraoui's words were wise: we have done the best we could under the circumstances. As I said in my earlier speech, as far as cabotage is concerned, the Commission intends to assess the situation and see if it might be possible to reach an agreement - it will depend on how things stand - it may be that we can open the sector further and so take the direction many Members have called for, but we must of course gauge the situation at the time.
To repeat, I believe that this is a good compromise, and I would like to address Mr Sterckx, who has the courtesy and good will not just to criticise, but then also to listen to the reply, unlike many Members, who have made criticisms and then are unfortunately unable to listen to the Commission's comments in response to what they have said. I would like to reassure Mr Sterckx, who is rightly concerned about the existence of prior agreements concerning his country of origin and the other Benelux countries.
It is my belief, however, that this legislation, as it is to be adopted, will not - as I said earlier - have any negative repercussions for existing agreements. They will remain in force, because the new legislation will broaden the situation but will not affect, and therefore not prejudice, bilateral or trilateral agreements that already exist. Thus I believe I can reassure Mr Sterckx that as I see it, which I believe is the correct and effective interpretation, there will be no negative repercussions for the agreements that chiefly - I repeat - concern Benelux.
I also wanted to reassure Mr Blokland and Mrs Wortmann-Kool about the concerns they voiced: we do not intend to stop here, we are looking - I repeat - to see how the situation develops, in 2013 we will prepare a report to assess the state of the art, how things have evolved, and if it is possible, if we deem it necessary, we will again propose to Parliament and the Council a possible extension of the situation and further liberalisation of the cabotage system. We are very aware though, that many EU countries hold a different view, and so in order to obtain approval from the Council it has been necessary to take a step back on other matters.
Nonetheless, I would say again that I think it is a very good thing that we have reached an agreement relatively quickly, an agreement that - I would also reassure Mr Jarzembowski - could always be improved; every law can be improved, but too often the best is the enemy of the good. I believe we are doing the right thing and I do not think it necessary to leave the European Union when we talk about these subjects, as Mr Nattrass suggests, because I think that good rules are useful to the European Union.
Even an authoritative British newspaper, the Financial Times, has speculated that Great Britain will re-think the need for stricter rules; certainly, during the crisis Europe has withstood the economic and financial crisis better than other regions, precisely because it has based its economic system on clear rules.
I believe, perhaps because I was born in Rome, that the history of Roman law and the Napoleonic Code has demonstrated the importance of having rules that guarantee society's development. I do not know which side of Hadrian's Wall Mr Nattrass was born on, but judging by his speech I would say he was born on the far side of the wall, and his ancestors therefore had no way of knowing Roman law.
Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to thank you again for your cooperation, and the Council for its work, and express my thanks once more in this House to the Commission staff of the Directorate General that I have the honour to lead, because without their valuable contribution it would not have been possible to reach a compromise that I believe to be positive for all EU citizens.
President
Mr Sterckx, do you wish to speak on a point of order?
Dirk Sterckx
(NL) Mr President, I just wanted to let the Commissioner know that Mrs HennisPlasschaert is no longer here, as she had to attend another meeting. I am the listening ear on behalf of everyone in our group who is involved in this subject. I simply wanted to inform you of the fact that she did not simply disappear.
President
Thank you, Mr Sterckx.
I believe that was not a point of order, but a matter of courtesy.
Mathieu Grosch
Mr President, I should like to start by thanking the Commission for its very clear answers. I would emphasise that the restriction on cabotage is a transitional arrangement, that the study is being carried out and that, depending on the result, market opening will also be in prospect.
Another very important aspect is that Article 306 applies here - including, quite clearly, to the Benelux countries, Mr Sterckx, which means that your request is superfluous and we no longer need to support it.
The other thing I want to say here concerns cabotage itself. Following the remarks I have heard here, I think that this compromise is actually even better than I had thought, for the simple reason - and this I address particularly to my fellow Members from the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe and my fellow Member from the Dutch Christian Democratic Appeal (CDA) - that creating a transitional arrangement does not mean that we wish to throttle the internal market - if I may use that expression - or businesses. If we bear in mind today that certain businesses use state-of-the-art vehicles but pay their drivers EUR 400 per month, whilst other businesses pay EUR 1 500 a month, it strikes me as more than reasonable to say that the social bar needs to be raised somewhat. If there is money available to meet vehicle requirements, there is also money to meet wage requirements. This bar must be raised, and only then can the market be opened. In my view, it is a faulty understanding of an open market to say we should open it and see where we go from there.
My last comment is that the funny thing is always that those very countries - for example the United Kingdom - who block any kind of harmonisation, particularly in the area of taxation, are today saying that there is a lack of harmonisation and so we should just let the market evolve. Some say they want to see restrictions, whilst others say we have far too many restrictions.
If we want to convince the European public, we cannot say that the market should be opened and everything else will sort itself out. Instead, environmental, social and tax legislation must be sorted out in this House together with the Council and the Commission. Then we shall be credible.
President
Thank you very much, Mr Grosch, for a speech that has already received the support evidenced by the applause of your fellow Members.
Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
Mr President, Commissioner, I would like to begin by thanking Mr Grosch, the shadow rapporteur, with whom I worked, along with the technical staff from the Committee on Transport and Tourism and the European Socialists Group, as well as my colleagues in the Commission and the Commission's staff, not to mention yourself, Commissioner, and the Presidency of the European Council which I have enjoyed very close cooperation with.
I would like to remind you that in June 2007 the European Commission proposed amending the regulation on access to the road transport business. The proposals for the amendment have come about from the experience gained following the application of European Commission Directive 96/26. This has resulted in some of the legislative provisions being reworded with the aim of ensuring more consistent application, by using a legal act in the form of a regulation. Here we are now roughly two years later, having a final vote on this document which has a direct impact on approximately 800 000 European enterprises and around 4.5 million jobs.
Our common objectives are as follows: to improve road safety, reduce bureaucracy, simplify procedures and provide predictability and certainty for road transport operators. I hope that this compromise which we have reached will develop the road transport market. I thank fellow Members once again for their cooperation.
President
The joint debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow at 12 noon.


1. Guinea
President
The next item is the debate on six motions for resolutions on Guinea.
Véronique De Keyser
Mr President, I believe that the level of interest in this matter far outweighs the crowd of people that have hurried into this Chamber this afternoon, which I regret once again for my group and for the others.
Mr President, Guinea-Conakry needs the support of the international community. Following the death of President Conté, a military junta seized power. Criticised by the international community, it did, however, receive domestic support because it promised a rapid transition to a civil regime with free elections. Captain Dadis Camara, who led the junta, made a firm commitment not to stand in the presidential elections, but after a disastrous management of the country - no budget, no public tender bids, no basic services for the population - he acquired a taste for power and clung to it so tightly that he is now standing in the elections. His electoral campaign relies on all of the country's organisational, media and economic resources. In the face of this violation of the commitments formerly made by the junta, the opposition organised a demonstration, which was brutally repressed by the presidential guard. It left 150 dead and more than 1 000 injured, and many women were raped and disembowelled.
The reaction of the European Parliament and, I hope, of the European Union, will be clear. We call for the suspension of the European Union fisheries agreement. We call on the African Union to impose sanctions on the military junta and to organise a dialogue within a reconciliation committee. We call for the installation of a transitional government to prepare for the presidential and legislative elections, the junta being definitively outlawed by the international community.
I hope that these reactions, which are appropriate for the tragedy that has taken place, will set a precedent, and that in other cases of flagrant breaches of human rights, the European Union will have the courage to act just as promptly.
Renate Weber
author. - Mr President, when you look into the situation of Guinea and learn about the atrocities that have taken place there in recent months, the first legitimate question to ask is why it has had so little media coverage. There have been only a few lines here and there, as though there had not been hundreds of people killed, terrible acts of torture and horrifying acts of rape aimed at annihilating human dignity.
It is true that various international institutions have condemned the military junta that came to power after a coup d'état, but I believe that much more should have been done to raise awareness among ordinary citizens, including European citizens. This is why I am pleased that at least the European Parliament, speaking on behalf of the citizens who sent us here, has an appropriate reaction and the resolution we will vote on today appropriately addresses it.
However, I consider that what is of the utmost importance is not only to criticise and condemn the current regime but also to eliminate any possibility of European funds intended to help the people of Guinea being misappropriated.
Cristian Dan Preda
28 September is an important date for the people of Guinea because it is the day when the referendum on independence took place. From this year on, however, 28 September will be a day marking the massacre perpetrated against opponents by the government installed by violence in Conakry.
Keeping this military junta in power is not an acceptable option. In fact, during all this time, Captain Dadis Camara, who assumed power, has promised that he will drop out of the contest and not present himself as a candidate. The date for this has now expired and soon, the ultimatum given by the African Union will too.
It is obvious that now that the military are in power, they are lying and must not be taken at their word. This is why a democratic government is needed, based on elections, and the international community must exert pressure to this end.
Marie-Christine Vergiat
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I already spoke in the debate during the Brussels mini-session, two weeks ago. Therefore I shall not go back over my speech.
My fellow Members have already made a number of points. For my part, I should like to say how pleased I am that all of the political groups within Parliament can today jointly respond to the appeal launched by Guinean civil society, by condemning the repression carried out by the military junta that has been in power since December, a repression of the peaceful demonstration staged to mark Guinea's independence.
This Guinean civil society is asking us to come to its aid, and it would, in fact, be totally unacceptable for the European Union to release funds as part of the fisheries agreement that we know full well today will go straight into the pockets of the military junta in power and not be used to help Guinean fishermen, as the texts intend.
The Guinean regime is the most corrupt regime in the world today. It is not I who says so, but the bodies in charge of monitoring the situation.
I therefore sincerely hope that, together, we will be able to vote for the joint resolution in its entirety, including the paragraph calling for the suspension of the fisheries agreement, and I hope that we will have the support of the Council and the Commission on this matter.
Adam Bielan
Mr President, when, at the end of last year, Captain Camara headed the military junta which took power in Guinea after the death of President Conté, the international community unfortunately held the naïve belief that Captain Camara would hold free and democratic presidential elections in which he would not take part. We now know that when, on 28 September, over 50 000 opposition supporters gathered in the national stadium to protest against Captain Camara's change of tack and broken promises, he sent the troops against them. Over 150 people died, over 1 200 were wounded, and there were numerous cases of rape.
I am pleased that Javier Solana, the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Policy and Security, was so quick to speak out. I would like to thank the French Government for suspending military cooperation with Guinea. However, three weeks have passed since the massacre, and these actions have yielded no visible results. For this reason, I believe that the European Union should focus on exerting pressure on Guinea, together with the UN and the African Union, and to apply the severest possible sanctions. Only then will we be able to talk about the handover of power by Captain Camara.
Isabella Lövin
Mr President, I welcome the decision announced by the Commissioner for Fisheries, Joe Borg, a couple of days ago that the Commission is withdrawing its proposal for a fisheries agreement with Guinea. The Committee on Fisheries has already voted against such an agreement. We did this two days after the massacre in Conakry, when more than 150 people were shot dead by government troops controlled by Moussa Camara.
I hope that this is the first step towards the European Union reviewing its trade policy with developing countries. We have a huge responsibility as one of the world's most important and largest players when it comes to trade and also development. There must be consistency between our trade and our relationship with this type of regime. Over the years, we have tried to improve the fisheries agreement by saying that some of the money from the agreement should go to supporting local fisheries. However, the Commission's own evaluations have shown that the money is not actually used for the purpose stated in the agreement, but instead goes directly to support this type of regime. The European Union must cease to provide this support.
Filip Kaczmarek
Mr President, we already talked about Guinea two weeks ago. Nevertheless, the situation in the country deserves our continuing attention and response. On Monday this week, the Committee on Development heard an eyewitness report of the events of 28 September given by the former prime minister and head of the opposition UFDG party, Mr Diallo.
It seems to me that calling upon the junta to respect freedom of speech, freedom of assembly or human rights in general will not be enough. If the junta respected these principles, these values, it would not be a junta, so we cannot expect that it will listen to these appeals. A man of action - and Captain Dadis Camara is definitely one - will only be stopped by action, and not by words. That is why I appeal to the European Commission to act.
Patrice Tirolien
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Guinea is currently being rocked by tragic events that have shocked the international public and flouted the law.
Indeed, on 28 September 2009, the military junta led by Captain Dadis Camara carried out the bloody repression of a peaceful demonstration bringing together all of the opposition parties.
Now, the Cotonou agreements base relations between the European Union and its ACP partners on respect for human rights and democratic principles. Therefore, Captain Dadis Camara's unilateral decision to postpone the elections and to refuse to raise the issue of his candidacy for Guinean president is a serious failure to honour the commitments made to hold free and transparent elections within one year.
The European Union must therefore take immediate action in line with the principles and the permanent values that underpin its action so that this violence, which represents so many human rights violations, stops.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am delighted that the compromise resolution is fully in line with our values and principles, but I am particularly anxious to emphasise here Article 10 of this text, namely the suspension of the fisheries agreement protocol between the European Union and the Republic of Guinea until the democratic process has begun.
I can hear people wondering whether such a decision would have disastrous socio-economic consequences for the population but, faced with the violence of 28 September, we must recognise that the Guinean Government is scarcely concerned about the living conditions of its citizens and that it leaves us with no other option than to be firm.
Since its independence in 1958, Guinea has only ever known dictatorial regimes.
Carl Haglund
Mr President, I will not repeat all of the intelligent and sensible things that have already been said by my fellow Members. I would firstly like to say that I am very pleased that this issue is being debated here today. I will briefly say a few words about the debate we had in the committee about the fisheries agreement on 30 September. In fact, when we debated this issue, you would have thought that the EU was in the process of entering into a trade agreement with any old Western democracy. Nowhere in the discussion or in the documents was it mentioned that the agreement in front of us was with a nation in which the situation is as it is today and which has already been described very well in this House.
Many people perhaps thought that fisheries and human rights are completely separate issues and that we should not mix the two together. Personally, I cannot understand how, as a politician, anyone could think in that way. The fact that the votes in the committee were 11 to 9 in favour of not concluding the agreement is also very worrying. This means that there was quite a large group in Parliament that, at least at that stage, thought that it was perfectly alright to enter into a trade agreement with a country like Guinea with the sort of regime that it has. I am pleased to say, firstly, that there is now a much higher level of agreement for us taking a clear line with regard to Guinea and, secondly, that there is broad support for the Council actually having withdrawn this agreement now. I am extremely pleased about this.
Some people may well think that those in favour of the agreement being withdrawn are not thinking about the fishermen who will be affected, but that is by no means the case. Of course, we must find a sustainable solution for them, but we cannot sweep human rights under the carpet simply because we have a number of fishing boats that need to be provided for.
Raül Romeva i Rueda
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. Mr President, I had the honour of participating in the meeting of the Committee on Fisheries when it voted, albeit by a very narrow margin, against renewing the fishing agreement with Guinea, precisely because of the massacres, rapes, and all the human rights violations which have taken place and have yet to be investigated.
Today, I would like the European Parliament to adopt this resolution in plenary. This step would send a clear message, both to the European institutions and to the government of Guinea, that we are not prepared to contribute taxpayers' money to keep a corrupt government in power that is involved in criminal activities.
I would be happy if, for once, and I hope that this will set a precedent, human lives and human rights were viewed as more important than an economic agreement. Such a move would please me all the more because the Commission has already taken that step, as has the Committee on Fisheries. It is now high time that the European Parliament also ratified this decision during its plenary session.
Thus, this is a great opportunity for us and I hope, as has already been mentioned, that article ten will remain intact.
(Applause from certain quarters)
Tomasz Piotr Poręba
Mr President, at least 157 dead and over 1 200 wounded is the result of the Guinean army's intervention in a peaceful opposition demonstration at the stadium in Conakry in September. This is the biggest massacre since Guinea's independence in 1958.
In taking power in December last year, President Camara promised to tackle corruption and anarchy and then to hand over power in democratic elections. Today, the military junta continues to rule the country with no respect for the basic principles of the rule of law or fundamental rights. Gangs of soldiers are regularly involved in attacks, robbery and rape.
As representatives of democratic countries, we must demand the immediate withdrawal of the junta and that all responsible for the bloody massacre of civilians, shooting into crowds and the public raping of women be brought to justice. Guinea is a country with huge economic potential, yet in spite of this, it is one of the world's poorest countries and one of the most corrupt states in Africa, and further dictatorship by the military junta could lead to civil war and destabilise the situation in the whole of West Africa.
Anne Delvaux
(FR) Mr President, 150 deaths and countless instances of sexual degradation have been recorded today. It was an unprecedented violation of the Guinean civilian population that was carried out on 28 September. It was also a disproportionate repression by the military junta in power, and the witness accounts leave no room for doubt.
We must be extremely firm in the face of such barbarity, and I welcome the targeted sanctions against Captain Moussa Dadis Camara's junta that were decided on yesterday by the EU Member States. Condemning the events is clearly not enough. We must demand that the events be investigated in full by a genuine international commission of inquiry, and that the crimes that have been committed do not go unpunished.
Moreover, I myself, would like, in the 30 seconds that I have left, to call on the Union to use all the means in its power to combat the use of sexual violence as a weapon of war. This is a fast-growing phenomenon in many armed conflict zones. It is women, often the very elderly or the very young, who are the victims. In all cases, however, it is vulnerable people who are targeted.
Support for the rule of law and good governance must automatically be accompanied by respect for human rights, for gender equality and for protection of the most vulnerable, as minimum conditions for any type of new cooperation agreement.
Harlem Désir
(FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, on 28 September, the people of Guinea took to the streets to appeal for the commitments that had been made to be honoured, and for free and democratic elections to be held, as promised.
They have suffered the worst possible repression by a regime that was already devoid of all legitimacy and which, that day, lost all dignity. Men were repressed, women were disembowelled with bayonets, and raped, and the political opponents and trade unionists were tortured and maimed.
The European Union must today support the African Union, ECOWAS and the United Nations in refusing to allow this crime to go unpunished and, above all, in showing solidarity towards the Guinean population. This country, which has an abundance of assets, will never be able to use them for its development as long as corrupt dictatorships can seize them for the benefit of a clan.
That is why I welcome the firm approach announced by the European Commission, one which our Parliament is able to demonstrate today. We cannot weigh strict economic interests against the commitments that were made by the European Union's partners, particularly those who signed the Cotonou Agreement, concerning respect for human rights and respect for democratic principles. Today we have a commitment to the people of Guinea: to support them in their fight for freedom and democracy.
Ioannis Kasoulides
Mr President, I asked for the floor simply to make a comment on the suggestion to suspend the existing EU-Guinea fisheries protocol. I doubt whether a brutal regime which does not hesitate to dispense with the lives of 156 of its citizens and is responsible for so many other atrocities will be moved by such a disproportionately small sanction on that issue. We should also bear in mind that there are legal obligations regarding this agreement towards people employed in the fishing industry in Guinea who have nothing to do with the brutal regime. That is why the EPP is hesitant to support this suggestion.
Charles Tannock
Mr President, the story of Guinea-Conakry follows a depressingly familiar African script: a dictatorial ruler; a military coup; one authoritarian regime replaced by another; and most of the people still living in abject poverty. Substantial mineral and oil resources could make Guinea one of Africa's most prosperous nations. Instead, the wealth fuels conflict and misery, not only in Guinea, but throughout a region that has witnessed appalling bloodshed and chronic instability in the past 20 years.
In the past, I have pressed the European Commission to help develop a kind of Kimberley Process for resources other than just diamonds to ensure that the activities of mining companies do not support civil war or ruthless dictators such as Captain Camara in Guinea. I am therefore especially concerned about the massive deal struck between Guinea and Chinese companies, and I hope that the Commission and Council will express to Beijing our expectations that its business activities there should neither provoke internal strife nor further undermine human rights in Guinea. However, like Mr Kasoulides, I suspect the proposals to rescind the EU fisheries agreement will only serve to punish local communities, not the military junta.
Heidi Hautala
(FI) Mr President, since we have been praising the Commission here for the decision it has made over the Guinea fisheries protocol, specifically on account of human rights violations, I would like to ask the Commission if it now intends to carry out a systematic survey of other similar situations, or at least prepare to act consistently and just as firmly if such serious human rights violations occur elsewhere.
Eija-Riitta Korhola
(FI) Mr President, recently a Finnish voter asked me how I would define human rights. I said that I should not define them on my own, and that it was not worth doing so; otherwise, they would not get any further than my own front door, the idea being that human rights have already been defined and that countries are committed to a respect for them. They are binding on the international community. That is why we appeal to them.
Guinea is a signatory to the Cotonou Agreement, which requires human rights and democracy to be respected. This is a basic premise. We really must insist that a country's democratic development should get properly under way when we conclude more cooperation agreements on the basis of Cotonou. As we have heard, the situation in Guinea at this time is intolerable and calls for a swift response and possible sanctions. Guinea has important reserves of ore and, consequently, great opportunities for development. At the same time, it is one of the world's most corrupt countries. It is quite deplorable that Chinese state-owned companies and businesses that invest in Guinea do not insist on any sort of commitment to human rights.
Leonard Orban
The Commission has been quick to condemn in strong terms and on more than one occasion (the President cut off the speaker) the massacres and blatant human rights violations which took place on 28 September 2009 and which have also continued since that date.
Through its participation in the International Contact Group on Guinea, the Commission approved the conclusions reached at the meeting on 12 October, envisaging the adoption of various measures supporting the observance of human rights.
First of all, at a humanitarian level, we need every person arrested arbitrarily to be released, the bodies of the victims to be handed over to their families, and all the injured, especially women who have been raped, to receive medical care. We cannot but express our dismay and concern that it seems, for the time being, that none of these measures have been carried out.
Secondly, the Commission welcomes the decision of the Secretary-General of the United Nations to set up an international committee of inquiry to investigate the massacres of 28 September in order to bring to justice the perpetrators of these acts. It is vitally important for us to put an end to their impunity and to the deterioration in the human rights situation in Guinea. The international committee of inquiry and the preliminary investigations carried out by the International Criminal Court will help improve the situation in this respect.
In this situation, the Commission is prepared to examine the possibility of giving financial support to the International Observation Mission and offering protection so that members of the Commission and witnesses are protected against acts of intimidation and to help create a safe atmosphere among Guinea's population.
On the other hand, in addition to imposing a total arms embargo, the Commission is inclined to examine the possibility of supporting reform in the area of security in order to reform the army and make it professional so that stability can be restored to Guinea.
Finally, I wish to point out that the measures required in accordance with Article 96 of the Cotonou Agreement were already adopted on 27 July 2009.
I also wish to mention a point that was emphasised before. For the sake of consistency and in order to increase the pressure on the military junta, Mr Borg, the Commissioner responsible for Fisheries and Maritime Affairs, has announced the Commission's intention to withdraw the partnership agreement being proposed in the fishing sector, due to be signed with Guinea. In fact, for the time being, we are not going to pay (applause) the corresponding financial contribution.
In response to the question I was asked, in other instances, the Commission will certainly take action on a case-by-case basis and look at the situations which have occurred on a case-by-case basis.
Thank you.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place after the debates.
Written statements (Rule 149)
Maria do Céu Patrão Neves
The main objective of the new partnership agreement between the EU and Guinea-Conakry is to strengthen cooperation between the European Union and the Republic of Guinea so as to encourage the establishment of a partnership to develop a policy of sustainable fishing and responsible exploitation of fisheries resources in the Guinea fishing zone, in the interests of both parties.
The financial contribution under the protocol is set at EUR 450 000 per year, for fishing opportunities relating to the category of highly migratory species. The entire amount is intended for establishing a national fisheries policy based on responsible fishing and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources in Guinean waters.
The above is in line with the Portuguese Communist Party's proposal regarding fishing agreements with third countries, which is why I voted in favour of this document.