Index 
 Previous 
 Next 
 Full text 
Procedure : 2008/0195(COD)
Document stages in plenary
Document selected : A7-0137/2010

Texts tabled :

A7-0137/2010

Debates :

PV 15/06/2010 - 4
CRE 15/06/2010 - 4

Votes :

PV 16/06/2010 - 8.10
CRE 16/06/2010 - 8.10
Explanations of votes
Explanations of votes
Explanations of votes

Texts adopted :

P7_TA(2010)0221

Debates
Wednesday, 16 June 2010 - Strasbourg OJ edition

8.10. The organisation of the working time of persons performing mobile road transport activities (A7-0137/2010, Edit Bauer) (vote)
PV
 

After the rejection of the common position:

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Štefan Füle, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, the College will review, in the light of this vote, the possible options, including a withdrawal of the proposal. We will ask Member States immediately how they apply the working time rules to self-employed drivers and how they monitor compliance with these rules.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Pervenche Berès (S&D).(FR) Mr President, I understood from the Commissioner’s speech that the Commission will withdraw its proposal, which we rejected. If so, then it no longer needs to be sent to the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  President. – I understood from what the Commissioner said that this option could be considered. If this is the case, then clearly you are right, Mrs Berès. If the Commissioner confirms that the Commission wishes to withdraw the proposal, then naturally, the Bureau, which I represent at this time, will not refer the matter to the committee responsible. Can you confirm, Mr Füle?

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Štefan Füle, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, I indeed said that the College will review possible options, including a withdrawal of the proposal.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Pervenche Berès (S&D).(FR) Mr President, in these conditions, and noting the degree of uncertainty confirmed in the Commissioner’s response, I would request, under Rule 56(3), that this plenary express its view on the legislative proposal which henceforth rejects the Commission’s proposal, and I would ask my fellow Members to confirm their vote by voting for the legislative proposal thus amended.

(Applause)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  President. – You are within your rights to do so, Mrs Berès. The rapporteur has requested the floor.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Edit Bauer, rapporteur. (HU) Unfortunately, I have to say that one of the possibilities is that an infringement procedure will be launched tomorrow against 25 Member States. I would like to ask that my name be removed from the report because I do not wish to contribute to this.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  President. – There is, however, a proposal by Mrs Berès. I invite someone to speak in favour and someone to speak against. Who wishes to speak against Mrs Berès’ proposal to put the rejection of the legislative proposal to the vote? No one? Who wishes to speak in favour?

There is no problem with the admissibility of Mrs Berès request under the Rules of Procedure, so we may put the proposal to the vote.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Giles Chichester (ECR). – Mr President, on a previous occasion when this House voted to reject a proposal from the Commission – in that case, a directive concerning oil reserves – it was referred back to the relevant committee because the Commission did not emphatically confirm that it was going to withdraw the proposal. The Commissioner has chosen his words very carefully. I disagree with Ms Berès’s interpretation. It should go back to the committee until we know whether the Commission will withdraw its proposal or not.

(Applause)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Emilie Turunen (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, I would like to speak in favour of proceeding with our votes today. Just to quote Rule 56(3): ‘If the Commission does not withdraw its proposal, Parliament shall refer the matter back to the committee responsible without voting on the draft legislative resolution, unless Parliament, on a proposal of the Chair or rapporteur of the committee responsible or of a political group or at least 40 Members, proceeds to vote on the draft legislative resolution’.

It is very clear. We have asked to proceed. Of course we should proceed.

(Applause)

 
  
 

(Parliament approved the proposal)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Hannes Swoboda (S&D).(DE) Mr President, the whole vote could have been handled differently if the rapporteur had kept to the committee results. Please could this be done in future?

(Applause)

 
Last updated: 3 August 2010Legal notice