Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-02-02-Speech-4-018"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060202.4.4-018"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it was in September 2001 that the Commission adopted the new White Paper entitled ‘European Transport Policy for 2010 – Time to Decide’, in which the prospects for development until that date were sketched out, and in which the Commission proposed some 60 different measures and an action programme with the main aim of making transport safer. Its presentation of the dossier we are debating today – on driving times and drivers’ rest periods and the associated directive on the monitoring of compliance with the conditions imposed by the first directive – did, of course, offer a good opportunity to turn good intentions into practical policies.
I would like to conclude by extending the warmest thanks to all those who worked with me on this dossier over many years – from the Committee, primarily Mr Hauck and Mr Darmis – and also the shadow rapporteurs. We all worked together very well in a way that was rather unusual, but did turn out to be worth it. I would also like to thank our Vice-President Mr Vidal-Quadras Roca, who conducted the conciliation proceedings with a firm hand, and Mr Tziorkas, the official responsible for our case.
I hope that the digital tachograph will soon be introduced and that the Member States will make the driver cards available, so that we will then have made some progress in bringing a bit more social justice, safety and fair competition onto the European Union’s roads.
It follows that the main question to ask when assessing what came out of the committee for conciliation between the Council and Parliament is whether the goals we have set ourselves have been achieved, the first of those being the improvement and harmonisation of professional drivers’ working conditions, the second being improved road safety and the third the creation of fair conditions under which all interested parties compete.
I will now proceed to set out the most important consequences of this compromise.
The first is that the time driven must not exceed nine hours in any given day, the second that it must not exceed 56 hours in a week and must not result in the maximum working time specified in the Working Time Directive being exceeded. Thirdly, total driving time over a period of two weeks must not exceed 90 hours. Fourthly, the regular daily rest period is equivalent to eleven hours, either consecutively or divided into two periods of three and nine hours respectively. This is in response to the desire for more flexibility expressed by the drivers, who will be able to use the rest periods in very different ways in the different climate conditions that prevail in winter and summer respectively. The fifth point is that the regulated rest time in a given week is fixed at a minimum of 45 hours, and the sixth that the report introduces the digital tachograph, thereby making possible extended and improved monitoring of compliance with the regulations. Seventhly, there are clear rules on the hauliers’ liability. Eighthly, the prescribed checking sample has been increased to 2% starting in 2008 and to 3% from 2010 onwards. The ninth point I want to make is that the checks must be carried out not only on the road but also on the company’s premises.
One can readily observe, from a comparison between the documents under consideration and those that formerly applied, that in no respect whatever have conditions been made worse. If, however, one weighs in the balance the results achieved with our initial conception of how things would turn out, one does come to a different conclusion in respect of certain of them.
Let me give you a few examples, the first being that the regulation does not apply to vehicles of less than 3.5 tonnes in weight, even though such vehicles are used to carry goods on more and more journeys, and are involved in more and more accidents. The second is that there are only two references to the Working Time Directive, yet compliance with its provisions is not monitored at the same time as compliance with the rules on driving times and rest periods. I do not believe that this goes anything like far enough to guarantee that drivers will be less likely to become over-tired or that it will be less likely that the maximum times will be exceeded, or that these things will not happen at all. Thirdly, although the annex to the monitoring directive includes a definition of what is meant by an offence against the regulation, this is not harmonised in any legally binding way. Fourthly, no provision is made for harmonised sanctions, with the consequence that the Member States can still impose different penalties for the same offence.
All these things considered, it can certainly be said that we have, together, come up with plenty of flexible solutions, and we do of course hope that this legislation will, during the planned period of two years, find its way into the new AETR and thus become applicable to those states that are not members of the European Union, but whose vehicles do use the EU’s roads, so that equality of competition may be established across the board.
As most of you know, I, in the conciliation committee, voted against the compromise we had achieved, and I did so out of the conviction that this House could have achieved more and that our majority on the committee was too hasty in calling a halt to negotiations with the Council. That being so, I can very definitely understand that there will be those taking part in today’s vote who are not among the advocates of this compromise. Although most of those affected by the regulation and the directive are not exactly jumping for joy, an absolute majority of them have expressed their support for the adoption of these two dossiers, and my vote will reflect that.
Finally, I would ask the Commission to do three things: firstly, to commission a study on the traffic patterns of goods vehicles under 3.5 tonnes, for I live in hope of a different kind of lobbyism and of our being able to incorporate these categories, too, in the directive at a later date. Secondly, I would ask them to help coordinate the various bodies that monitor driving times, rest times and working times, and, thirdly, to organise, together with the Member States and the social partners, seminars on this new legislation in order to get it implemented as soon as possible."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples