Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-04-11-Speech-1-132"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050411.18.1-132"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Mr Markov, ladies and gentlemen, we are dealing here with two closely linked matters. The first concerns the rules governing the maximum number of hours behind the wheel for professional drivers and their minimum breaks and rest periods. The second lays down the rules for the implementation of social regulations relating to road transport activities.
This brings me to the dates for the introduction of the digital tachograph. In the view of the Commission, the current deadlines of 5 May 2005 for Member States being able to issue driver cards and 5 August 2005 for the requirement that new vehicles be equipped with a digital tachograph should remain in place. There is no cogent reason for any additional delay. The manufacturers of tachographs and vehicle manufacturers have already made considerable investments. All of the Member States have committed themselves in the common position of the Council to the scheduled dates and are already establishing training courses for inspectors. If we were to extend the deadlines again, this would create the utmost uncertainty, both for the Member States and for the industries concerned. I must therefore plead at this stage for adhesion to the scheduled dates for the sake of greater legal certainty.
Let me move on now to enforcement. The Commission’s objective is to enhance the quality and intensity of the checking efforts on the part of the Member States. It has tried to develop a comprehensive verification system covering all Community social legislation in the field of road transport, including the verification of compliance with the rules governing working hours. It has encouraged action to enhance coordination between inspectorates, both within and between Member States. It has sought to develop a harmonised approach to penalties and a common definition of serious infringements.
It is in the light of these goals that I shall indicate the Commission’s response to the amendments proposed by the European Parliament, which seem on the whole to reflect the concerns of the Commission.
Firstly, there is enforcement of the rules on working hours. The Commission can only support the reintroduction of this element into the draft. The approach based on verification within undertakings for which you have opted seems to me to be a logical and effective approach.
Secondly, there is the common definition of several serious infringements. Yes, the Commission welcomes Parliament’s reintroduction of this provision into the draft, because we believe that a harmonised approach to verification requires a common definition of what constitutes a serious infringement.
Thirdly, there is the designation of a national supervisory authority. This body would be responsible for coordinating the checks conducted by Member States at both the national and the international level. This provision as formulated by Parliament is fully supported by the Commission. Such an authority would not dictate to the various national inspectorates but would reconcile their points of view. This would be an improvement on the Council’s common position, which provides for a national enforcement strategy and a national point of contact with the other Member States.
Then we come to the deadlines by which the frequency of checks is to be increased from 1% to 3% of working days. While we appreciate the aim pursued by Parliament and acknowledge that the Council’s approach suffers from a lack of ambition, the Commission calls for realism, preferring to ensure that all Member States are in a position to carry out the number of checks required by the directive and that checks meet the prescribed quality criteria. You see, ever since I took up my present office, it has been my constant concern to ensure that our decisions can be effectively enforced, and it is for this reason that, while acknowledging the benefits of progressive stringency, we prefer to be certain that we shall at least achieve our goal.
My last point concerns roadside checks. Here the Commission urges caution; the list of data to be collected by inspectors from drivers should not be too extensive. Such stringent checks are liable to be counterproductive, because they will be difficult to conduct in roadside conditions.
That, Mr President, is what I wished to add to the rapporteur’s presentation. My services will, of course, transmit the Commission’s detailed position on each of the tabled amendments.I shall now listen attentively to the debate, and I shall remain at the disposal of the House for any questions that might arise. This is an important matter, and I thank all the Members here today who wish to contribute to this major project.
I should like to remind you that the aim of these two proposals is to encourage fair competition between transport companies throughout the European Union and to improve road safety and the working conditions of professional drivers. The European harmonisation of social legislation in the realm of road transport is under way. This discussion of ours today, of course, relates to the European legislation on working hours in road transport which entered into force on 23 March. This new legislation guarantees that drivers operating in a country other than their own must comply with minimum European standards. There is now a need to supplement this legislation.
The application of harmonised social rules is imperative, not only for the internal market and road safety but also as a means of guaranteeing minimum social rights for workers in the road transport industries. The joint efforts of Parliament and the Council have not so far produced an agreement. I can assure you that the Commission is ready, and will remain ready, to play its role as facilitator and mediator between the two institutions.
Returning to the issue itself, let me emphasise that the rules currently in force were laid down twenty years ago. During that period, of course, we have seen road transport services being entirely opened to competition in the Community, not only for international operations but also for domestic transport. At the same time, the European Union has experienced several waves of enlargement, the most recent of which took place last year, and road transport has become the dominant mode of transport within the Union. Competition among road transporters is fierce, which induces operators to yield to the temptation to disregard basic social rules in order to safeguard their profit margins.
In an area where Europe is sometimes criticised for its lack of action in the social field, we must make every effort to resolve an issue of such deep concern to workers in the road transport industries.
In this context, I should like to remind you of the three main aims of the Commission when it formulated its proposal on driving times and rest periods for professional drivers. It is in the light of what has gone before that I shall indicate the position of the European Commission on the main elements of your report, Mr Markov, which I commend for its analytical clarity and relevance.
The first aim is to simplify the rules. Any attempt to reintroduce special provisions or manifold derogations and exemptions will not only make the rules highly complex but will also make them impossible to enforce. This is why we shall not be able
why I personally, at the end of the day, am unable
to accept any of the amendments that would make this instrument too complex and hence difficult to apply. The public image of Europe must be characterised by clarity, simplicity and accessibility. One obvious example is the amendment designed to permit a division of the daily rest period into four distinct parts. Regardless of the dubious benefits of such an arrangement in terms of road safety, it would encourage inspectors to focus only on the main daily rest period and ignore the others. This is why we are committed to simplification.
Then to the second aim, namely making the rules clearer for operators, drivers and inspectors. If we take the example of the proposal that all utility vehicles below 3.5 tonnes be included, this raises two questions: will every vehicle used for commercial purposes fall within the scope of the legislation? Will it mean compulsory fitting of tachographs to scooters used to deliver pizzas and to pick-ups? Is that even technically possible? I am well aware of Parliament’s concern to avoid abuses involving circumvention of the 3.5-tonne threshold, and I understand that concern. We must take care, however, to ensure that the rules are relatively clear, and we must never lose sight of the aim of effective enforcement.
Lastly, there is the need to update the rules in the light of developments in the road transport sector. Let me give you two examples. Firstly, speed limits for agricultural and forestry tractors have been standardised throughout the European Union. This harmonisation has been taken into account by your Parliament, and the Commission will support the relevant amendment. Secondly, we have to recognise that public services such as postal services and gas- and electricity-supply services have undergone considerable change. I no longer see any reason to exclude them. Those, then, are the three aims."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples