New developments in public procurement (short presentation)
The next item is the short presentation of the report by Heide Rühle, on behalf of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, on new developments in public procurement [2009/2175 (INI)] -.
Mr President, I would like to include in my thanks all the shadow rapporteurs for their constructive cooperation and for the good results achieved in committee so far. Allow me to reiterate and highlight the main points of my report.
Firstly, we need greater legal certainty for all those involved - contracting authorities and contractors - with a view to better regulation. My report stresses the particularly great significance that public procurement has in times of crisis. However, my report also criticises the fact that the complex interaction of European legislation and national transposition has not resulted in a simplification and debureaucratisation of public procurement, as was, in fact, the aim of the 2004 revision, but rather in more work, high external costs for legal advice and protracted procedures. Unfortunately, this is at the expense of innovation and quality. Numerous studies show this to be the case. Far too often, the lack of legal clarity results in the cheapest offer being selected, rather than the best tender.
Whilst the Commission now provides assistance in the area of green procurement, there is no such assistance in the areas of socially responsible procurement, fair trade or the promotion of innovation through procurement. The Commission has some urgent reworking to do here.
Better coordination within the Commission is also urgently needed. The European Court of Justice has removed a number of legal uncertainties in recent judgments and strengthened the role of public procurers, for example, by indicating that the scope of the directives should not be extended into areas such as urban planning. These judgments do not give contracting authorities a blank cheque, but rather provide them with a clear framework. This, too, was something I sought to reiterate in my report.
One final point remains: the matter of the service concessions, on which opinions differed greatly within the committee. My position on the matter has not changed. The service concessions were deliberately removed from the directives on procurement in order to ensure greater flexibility in these areas and to take account of cultural differences. This position is also supported by all the stakeholders that I have spoken to, whether they be municipal umbrella organisations, public enterprises - particularly in the water industry, industrial associations, trade unions or, not least, NGOs. That is also something that I wanted clearly reiterated in my report.
I have one further point to mention that is also very important to me: public procurement must not result in the institutions selected losing their democratic rights. If we find that many municipalities are now including fair trade as an important criterion in public procurement decisions - whether when buying coffee or for other products - then I think it is important to bolster this. In this event, it would be very important for the Commission to help the municipalities and, if they make a mistake, to be there to advise them. Instead, the Commission has instituted new legal proceedings against the Netherlands in respect of precisely such mistakes. I consider this sort of thing counterproductive because it runs counter to the political decisions made by the political bodies.
I notice that several speakers would like to express their opinions. Remember that you each have one minute.
(FR) Mr President, I should like to begin by congratulating the rapporteur and thanking her for her in-depth work and receptiveness. It was a pleasure to work with her on this report. I believe that the result of this work is a balanced report of which the focal point is the increase in legal certainty. Therefore, the aim now is not to propose more legislation at any price but to make the existing legislation more accessible and intelligible.
One specific point to be raised - Mrs Rühle has already raised it - is that of service concessions. This is a sensitive point that has also caused some controversy within the Commission. I should like to insist once again that, insofar as we know that the Commission intends to propose new items of legislation to us on this subject, it should do so by bearing in mind the need to improve the functioning of the single market. At this moment in time, nothing else could justify major legislative initiatives on this matter.
(DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, my group would actually have liked to support Mrs Rühle's report, because it contains a great many very positive elements.
Unfortunately, there are three points that we consider lacking or that we are unable to accept as they stand in the report. Firstly, Mrs Rühle was unable to accept that we genuinely have need of a legal framework for services in the general economic interest, and secondly, she also failed to state clearly that it is a matter of greater legal certainty in the area of social services in particular. This is a shortcoming of the report that we naturally find very regrettable.
One point that we are absolutely unable to accept is the rejection of service concessions. We cannot simply say that it is something we do not want. The Court of Justice has already ruled on all this. It is highly unpolitical. It is very important that we say quite clearly what we want if we know that the European Commission is preparing a legal text. It is important that we call upon the European Commission actually to go along with the very positive position taken by the Court of Justice on this matter, thereby also ensuring legal certainty. That is our demand and consequently, we have submitted an alternative resolution. We ask our fellow Members to support this alternative resolution.
(RO) I would like to congratulate the rapporteur for all her efforts on this report. I totally concur with the need to simplify European public procurement legislation and increase transparency. I am concerned by the large number of disputes over public procurement in numerous Member States.
For example, in Romania, the particularly complex legislative framework leads to procedural errors, while the misapplication of public procurement regulations can impede the use of the Structural Funds. This is why we need a simpler, clearer legislative framework to facilitate matters on both sides.
I would also like to comment on the problem of the lowest price. I agree that a public procurement contract should not be awarded simply on the basis of offering the lowest price. I also agree with the rapporteur that the tender's quality/price ratio and economic benefit must be the most important factors, not only the price. The legislative review must therefore take into account this fact and introduce far greater flexibility for public procurers. However, we must do this with great caution because, if we fail to establish clear criteria, we will open up a real Pandora's Box, with the risk of us triggering legal uncertainty again and even corruption.
Mr President, as the shadow rapporteur for my group, but also as the chairman of the committee responsible, I want also to join in thanks to Heide Rühle for what is a really important report. Indeed, it is a shame that under the rather strange rules of this Parliament, such an important report about a key element of the single market and indeed public policy is confined only to one-minute interventions.
I think it is welcome that Mr Tajani is here because I want to say to him that public procurement is a key instrument for encouraging innovative enterprise across the European Union. Mr Barnier, we know, is now going to have a look at strategy and I hope will pick up many of these things.
But the core of the problem, colleagues, is that we have a regime which, as this report says, is confusing and complex and indeed which many public authorities regard as a bureaucratic imposition instead of an opportunity. We can use public procurement to drive forward areas like small and medium-sized enterprises, Commissioner, and opportunities for innovation and green products and services - and, indeed, for supporting the whole of the innovation agenda. That is what we have to achieve, but it will need a concerted effort by all arms of the Commission to deliver the recommendations in this report.
(SK) Public procurement appears to be an effective way of purchasing goods and services for the public sector, making it possible to achieve reasonable prices while reducing the suspicion of corruption. In future, however, it would be good to work on simplifying the mechanisms of the public procurement process, and also to try and shorten the time it takes to make decisions.
In my opinion, we should support the basic principle of that aim. However, experience shows that it is also a good thing to publish contracts on the Internet, as this makes it possible to familiarise the broader public with these contracts and to convince them of the advantages of the contracts. Experience bears this out particularly in local authorities, where handling the assets of the community was very often under the watchful eye of citizens, and when all contracts began to be published on the Internet, people were more satisfied and trusted the local authorities more.
(CS) I believe that this report on public procurement, which was adopted by the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection with an absolute majority, will provide a good guideline for the work of the Commission in revising the directive. Our aim is to make public procurement much more accessible to small and medium-sized businesses, and for tenders to be less bureaucratic and, at the same time, easier to monitor. The greatest volume of public procurement from EU funds relates to buildings, where there is often a suspicion - and sometimes more than that - of corruption.
I am sorry that we will not be voting in this report on my proposal for the Commission to set up a public portal where it would be possible to monitor price differences between the successful contracts and the actual costs of construction following implementation. The portal should monitor and thereby also detect suspicious price differences, for example, relating to the construction of one kilometre of motorway between Member States. I firmly believe that access to genuinely open public procurement will only open up for SMEs once corruption has been rooted out.
(RO) The public procurement market at EU level is worth 16% of the EU's GDP. The internal market assumes that any European company can access acquisitions made in any Member State. The Services Directive guarantees that any European company can provide services in any other Member State, including via electronic means.
The internal market needs to ensure interoperability between e-Government systems, therefore, also between digital signature systems and tender systems operated electronically. I welcome the PEPPOL pilot project launched by the Commission for online public procurement, as well as the decision about the list of accredited certification service providers and the European plan for setting up a digital signature validation service.
I wish to draw attention to the fact that in 2005, Member State governments committed to carrying out 50% of public procurement transactions in Europe electronically by 2015. Romania implemented the online public procurement system back in 2002, which led to a reduction in public expenditure, a greater degree of transparency and an increase in access to the public procurement market for SMEs.
(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, I, too, would like to thank Mrs Rühle and the shadow rapporteurs for this sterling report. The Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) is happy with a great deal of what is contained in this report. We have also agreed to compromise on one or two points, because you can never have everything in a House such as this. Overall, the report provides a good basis for further discussion with the European Commission on a number of topics.
Mrs Rühle has already addressed the question of how one can enable the contracting bodies, institutions and authorities to take social criteria into consideration in procurement without compromising the principles of the internal market. Secondly - and this has been addressed by Mr Engel - how can we design the service concessions so as to comply with the internal market in the long term?
I completely agree with Mr Engel and Mrs Rühle that we can only accept new legislation on the proviso that it offers a clear and recognisable advantage for the internal market. In view of this, we have achieved a good compromise and naturally, I would be pleased if, ultimately, the Social Democrats were also able to support it.
(RO) Against the backdrop of the global economic and financial crisis, my country's government has had to reduce the salaries of state employees, pensions and unemployment benefit, as well as cut subsidies. Bearing in mind these particularly tough measures, public procurement must be carried out in the most transparent and quickest way possible so as to ensure that public money is spent properly and effectively.
In addition, the use of online tender systems must be encouraged, which will help eradicate corruption and fraud in the public procurement system. Current administrative procedures, the confusing and complicated legal system, along with the need to clarify the process for appeals relating to the awarding of procurement contracts, have blocked the progress of some important contracts. Following consultations with the IMF, the Romanian Government amended its public procurement act, which is due to come into force by 1 June.
(IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the economic and financial markets crisis has shown the key role of public procurement, which is aimed at developing large-scale works, at stimulating innovation and, of course, at encouraging internal and external competition at European level.
We consider it essential to simplify standards and achieve greater legal certainty. This would definitely increase transparency over the composition and the work of the consultative committee on public procurement, for which the Commission is responsible.
We welcome the part played by an institutionalised public-private partnership in facilitating access for the small and medium-sized enterprises that form the basis of our economy. We need to step up our efforts to prevent discrimination, which often hits small and medium-sized businesses within Europe. I congratulate my fellow Members for the work they have carried out, and they can count on my support tomorrow.
Mr President, I think, in finding reasons for the economic recession we find ourselves in, the finger is pointed - and rightly so - at bankers, builders, regulators, speculators, etc. I think, however, the area of public procurement has led to a lot of the problems as well, where there was an element of 'jobs for the boys', a lack of transparency and a lack of integrity. The contracts went inevitably to the same people all the time who, of course, time and time again, went over time and over budget but were never penalised.
I welcome these new developments that will allow us to have the greatest possible transparency in the process. However, we also need to ensure that those who are sitting in judgment on these contracts have the greatest expertise and the greatest independence and are not appointees of the parties in power.
Finally I want to say that simplification is, of course, vital, because there is no point in having too much time and too much money taken up in a very important but, after all, a preliminary exercise.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission and, in particular, Commissioner Barnier, for whom I am standing in this evening, have monitored very closely the preparation of Parliament's own-initiative report on new developments in public procurement and the debate concerning the amendments.
As Mrs Ticǎu, Mrs Comi and Mr Harbour said, good discipline in the field of public procurement is fundamental to ensuring that best use is made of public money for the welfare of the citizens and of small and medium-sized enterprises, especially in the current tight budgetary situation.
The comments made in the report will be duly taken into account in the preparation of new initiatives. Work has already begun on some initiatives, which are in response to those comments. The Commission services have begun an ex post evaluation of the public procurement directives. A communication to clarify the way in which to use public procurement to promote sustainable development, social inclusion and innovation is currently being drafted. An analysis of the case-law of the Court is also under way on public-public cooperation, and it will enable us to define the scope of public-public cooperation that is included or not within the scope of European public procurement law.
As regards a possible initiative on concessions, the Commission assumes the burden of proof and is working on an impact study, which will be finalised in 2010. This evaluation is a prerequisite for any legislative initiative on the matter. If it reveals that the current legal framework is curbing economic development or the development of a new, better quality service of general interest, then we will undoubtedly have to remedy it by ensuring greater transparency, legal certainty and clarity with regard to the applicable rules.
At international level, we are doing everything we can to open up the public procurement markets of the world's major economies. In order to ensure the competitiveness of European industry, reciprocity is at the heart of all our negotiations. We want to work in close cooperation with Parliament, and we invite you to maintain a constructive and open approach to the discussion.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow (Tuesday, 18 May 2010).


Documents received: see Minutes


14. Statistics on education and lifelong learning (vote)
- Report: Sifunakis


3. Verification of credentials (


Order of business
The final draft agenda drawn up on Thursday, 4 February 2010 by the Conference of Presidents pursuant to Rule 137 of the Rules of Procedure has been distributed. The following amendments have been proposed:
Monday:
No changes.
Tuesday:
The Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) has submitted a request to add to the agenda Council and Commission statements on the difficult monetary and economic situation of euro area countries. This concerns Member States which are experiencing financial difficulties.
on behalf of the PPE Group. - (NL) It is important for this House to debate the latest developments in the euro area and also the measures being taken by the European Commission with regard to the euro area countries that are in the danger zone.
We have seen that, in recent weeks, these developments have had a very great impact on the euro exchange rate and have also led to turbulence on the financial markets. Therefore, prior to Thursday's informal summit, we should like to see a statement by the Council and the Commission concerning not only the plans already proposed but also the measures that could still be taken to restore confidence in the euro as quickly as possible.
Mr President, I would like categorically to support this motion. It is important that we discuss this issue and address the fundamental problems without getting into a party-political squabble over who is to blame for the crisis.
I have two requests. Firstly, if my fellow Members from the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) are in agreement, we should include social impact in the title in order to make it clear that what is at stake here is the social impact of the crisis in these countries.
Secondly, we also want to talk to the Commission, but we want to discuss this with the members of the Commission who will bear responsibility for this issue in the future. Since the new Commission has not yet taken office, we should ask the President of the Commission to attend such a discussion himself or to send somebody who will have a post in the new Commission, such as Mr Almunia or Mr Rehn. In this difficult and important debate, it would be sensible to have an interlocutor who will subsequently discharge the same responsibility in the Commission.
If we agree to this request and include it as an item on the agenda, representatives of the Commission will be present. I will talk to Mr Barroso about this. Does anyone want to speak against the request? I do not see anyone. We shall now proceed to the vote. Who is in favour of this request?
I should like to emphatically endorse Mr Swoboda's proposal. This is about all the consequences, of course, including the social ones.
on behalf of the PPE Group. - Mr President, indeed, these are three resolutions adopted by the Committee on Foreign Affairs examining the Commission's progress report on enlargement.
They can therefore be seen together, examined together and debated together.
on behalf of the EFD Group. - Mr President, I know you had an overloaded agenda at the Conference of Presidents meeting last week and there was not much time to debate the addition of this item to the agenda, but in the January plenary - as you all saw - members of different political groups expressed concerns at the points raised in the question on abuses relating to foreigners' property in Spain. Wednesday evening provides an opportunity for the Commission to give an answer.
Therefore, I invite our colleagues to support this proposal. On behalf of the EFD Group, I would invite you to hold a roll-call vote. If the majority is in favour of this proposal, I would like to propose a second roll-call vote to wind up the debate with a resolution.
Mr President, I would like to speak in favour of Mrs Andreasen's motion because many of our constituents write to us on this problem and I think it is something that Parliament should debate.
Mr President, I would merely note that a very anti-European group is using the European Parliament to raise this issue. This is a welcome development but all the same, I am against, Mr President.
(Applause)
Mr President, if I can make one very small point of order. My colleague over there (Mr Guy Verhofstadt) referred to us as 'anti-European'. This is not true; we are anti the European Union.
That was not a point of order. Please do not comment on the substance of a matter when we are setting the agenda and there is not time for such things.
Thursday:
The Confederal Group of the European United Left - Nordic Green Left has submitted a proposal concerning the debate on cases of breaches of human rights, democracy and the rule of law. The group proposes replacing the debate on Madagascar with a debate on the death penalty, particularly the case of Mumia Abu-Jamal.
Mr President, we believe that the item on Madagascar is not particularly important today. We would therefore ask that that time slot be used to discuss the case of Mr Mumia Abu-Jamal, the Afro-American journalist who was found guilty of murdering a policeman in 1982, following a trial based on circumstantial evidence.
Mumia Abu-Jamal has been sentenced to death and has been waiting on death row for 30 years. Up until now, no satisfactory explanation has been found for the events surrounding this murder and the evidence has never really been properly investigated. In any case, the death sentence is one of the clearest violations of human rights we know. Although, in this trial, the death sentence could have been commuted to lifelong imprisonment, the prosecution rejected this possibility at the end of January. The life of Mr Abu-Jamal is now more at risk than ever. We would like this matter to be debated in plenary so that we can decide what action to take in order to ensure that his death sentence is suspended and that Mumia Abu-Jamal is given the opportunity to prove his innocence in a fair trial.
Mr President, I do not deny that Mumia Abu-Jamal's situation is critical and that the case certainly deserves to be heard. However, the situation in Madagascar is absolutely chaotic. The whole country is suffering from a transitional regime which was installed illegally and which is leading that country into anarchy.
It is very difficult to tell you that one is better than the other. I think that we can save Madagascar. Mr President, you can make representations once again to the United States to request the suspension of the death penalty. This will not be the first time and, unfortunately, I fear that it will not be the last. In any case, on behalf of my group, I refuse to withdraw the resolution that we have prepared on the subject of Madagascar, where there is also a real danger for an entire population.
In accordance with your proposal, I will analyse the problem thoroughly and make a statement on this.
(Parliament rejected the request)
(The order of business was adopted)


Adjournment of the session


Organisation of the working time of persons performing mobile road transport activities (debate)
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 -
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
(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.
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.
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.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Tuesday 5 May 2009.


Welcome
I now have great pleasure in greeting here today a delegation of MPs and other visitors from the New Zealand Parliament and the Mission of New Zealand to the European Union, who are now with us in the distinguished visitors' gallery.
(Applause)
The members of the delegation are in Brussels to meet with their counterparts from the European Parliament at the 14th European Parliament/New Zealand Interparliamentary Meeting. They are leaving Brussels for West Flanders after their meetings this afternoon, where they will attend a number of events tomorrow commemorating the 90th anniversary of the Battle of Passchendaele. I wish the delegation well for the remainder of their stay in the European Union.


5. Sustainable mobility (vote)
- Barsi-Pataky report
(ES) Mr President, this report is still appearing on the monitors as Krahmer, when in fact it is the Barsi-Pataky report. That may create some confusion. It confused me.
It is correct now. Thank you for drawing my attention to what is happening behind the scenes.