Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-01-16-Speech-3-244"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020116.16.3-244"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we are discussing three reports, or to be more precise, three legislative proposals that aim to improve road safety and guarantee better a smoother operation of the internal market.
The Commission has problems with Amendment No 13, which refers to the place of training. We feel that there could be a certain degree of flexibility in continuous short-term training, and that it should be able to take place both in the Member State in which a driver is normally
resident and in the country in which he or she is contracted to work, but not in other areas, given that there are similar accepted requirements with regard to driving licences and the driver card.
Amendment No 19 introduces an international transport option based mainly on the understanding of languages. This is not the aim of this proposal and, therefore, cannot be accepted and we reject it. The Commission does not accept Amendments Nos 2, 22 and 23 either, because they go beyond the scope of the current Directive. Finally, we believe that Amendments Nos 42, 44 and 45, which lay down the duration of training in the body of the text rather than in the Annex, cannot be accepted either.
I shall conclude, Mr President, by thanking the three rapporteurs for their work. I would also like to thank Parliament, and there are no surprises here, for two of their proposals, specifically the proposal on maximum authorised dimensions in national and international traffic and maximum authorised weights in international traffic, and the proposal establishing a driver attestation and I hope that these will be approved so that we can move ahead as soon as possible with their implementation. I hope that in later stages of proceedings we will be able to reach agreement on the training of professional drivers for the carriage of goods or passengers by road, which we also consider to be a vitally important factor in improving road safety and in preventing market distortions, specifically in the transport market within the European Union. I hope this happens because, as I have already said, many of the amendments tabled are going to be accepted and some of those that mention the suitability of leaving a wider margin for subsidiarity will be incorporated into the amended proposal that we will be presenting at an appropriate time.
I would like to congratulate Mr Hatzidakis on his excellent work as rapporteur on the report on the maximum authorised dimensions in national and international traffic and the maximum authorised weights in international traffic, and on his work on achieving an agreement at the end of this process. I would like to express my satisfaction, because the report’s conclusion manages to find a reasonable balance between the internal market, regulation and safety, without forgetting technical and commercial considerations. In fact, this was the intention of the Commission when it proposed the initiative and, I would, therefore, like to thank Parliament for adopting the common position, which the Commission fully supports without amendment given that, in practical terms, it incorporates all the amendments adopted by Parliament at first reading and introduces other slight modifications to the Commission’s initial proposal.
Now that I have thanked Mr Hatzidakis for his work, I would like to also thank Mr Van Dam for the work he has done and tell him here and now that the Commission intends to draw up an evaluation report over three years, as soon as the Regulation enters into force. I hope that, with this, Parliament will be able to vote on the basis of the Council common position and bring the matter to a conclusion, which will allow us to embark upon a more focused battle for employment and to regulate the situation of third country nationals employed as drivers by EU transport companies.
Lastly, I would like to refer to the training of professional drivers for the carriage of goods or passengers by road. I would like to thank Mr Grosch, who has drawn up the last report on road transport that we are debating today and say that the report and its explanatory statement show that the European Parliament shares the point of view of the European Commission on the importance of this proposal, even though it is a technical proposal. The measures proposed allow for a complete package to be introduced in the area of training and assessment of bus and truck drivers to establish minimum requirements.
Mrs Langenhagen, this is not an obligation to reduce the amount of professional training given in particular countries, it simply seeks to establish minimum requirements that must be met in all countries.
There is, therefore, no need to alter the three-year requirement currently in force in Germany. In fact, the opposite is true, given that this is in excess of the minimum stated in the Directive. What is really needed is for all German drivers, not just the minimum number, as is the case today, to take up and complete this training. The objectives are to raise the quality of professional drivers and standards in road transport in general and to guarantee positive results in terms of road safety.
Generally speaking, we can accept the majority of the amendments, making a few alterations here and there, but some of them, on the other hand, we are bound to reject. For example, Amendments Nos 25 to 41, which aim to make the initiative the sole responsibility of the Member States. We should not forget that only 5% of Community bus and goods vehicle drivers currently benefit from professional training. Just 5%.
This proposal is, therefore, essential in order to improve this situation, and only Community legislation to make it mandatory can fulfil this objective. These amendments, however, would lead to reduced safety standards and a clear distortion of competition. In particular, with regard to Amendment No 37, we will incorporate some of Mr Bradbourn’s concerns into the modified Commission proposal, in order to thus leave a wider margin for the principle of subsidiarity, because we feel that on some of the issues he has raised, he is right.
Even if the Commission is able to accept the principle of parallel training with the aim of obtaining both a driving licence and a certificate of professional competence, we would prefer to avoid any kind of duplication, and this why we cannot accept Amendments Nos 6, 16, 17 and 18. We cannot accept No 5 either, because imposing basic training on drivers who already work in this profession but do not have three years previous experience could cause difficulties in the sector, which is currently suffering from serious problems due to a lack of drivers. However, in the spirit of compromise we could accept Amendment No 27. With regard to Amendment No 10, which relates to the inclusion of training within working hours, the Commission considers that this is an issue that both sides of industry should agree upon, and, therefore, cannot be accepted."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples