Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-02-02-Speech-4-020"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060202.4.4-020"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we have been through the conciliation procedure, the very name of which indicates that its purpose is to seek out compromises. It would be going too far for the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats – or anyone else, for that matter – to claim that the result is all that we would have hoped for. The essential question as regards the work that has been done on this at every level is whether this dossier is going in the right direction, whether certain goals we had set ourselves have been achieved. The answer I can give to that, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group, is very definitely in the affirmative.
That brings me to the second point I want to make, which is that we, in this House, can draft – and, indeed, adopt – the best of directives, but that is pointless if there is no willingness or desire in the Member States to monitor them in a systematic manner. I would go so far as to say that I am convinced that there are many areas in which we have no need of lots of new legislation; what we need is simplification, along with, in some cases, a certain tightening up of the scope for interpretation, so that the people in the various countries know what to expect. Even the best of directives will be futile without the possibility of monitoring and equally applied sanctions. That being so, I would also like to thank the Commission, which will take the initiative in dealing with serious misdemeanours. We will do this on a consensus basis. I would, in any case, ask that those who are not members of the PPE-DE Group should also acknowledge this result as being what I believe it to be – a step forwards.
We regard driving times and drivers’ rest periods as a safety issue, and anything that highlights or improves safety as a step in the right direction, and it is for that reason that I would like to thank the rapporteur, the members of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, and also the Commission, for I do believe that all of them – different though their expectations may have been – were working together with one end in mind. In that respect, we have done a good job.
This is an important forward step in that it has involved us analysing the vital measures to be taken at European level in relation to those countries whose vehicles also travel on European roads. We had, of course, expected rather more of that, but we have to bear in mind what is possible, and if we have got so far as to get, tomorrow, 42 countries – 25 EU Member States plus the other European states – to accept such things through the AETR agreement, then we have sent a clear message to the outside world where safety is concerned, for safety is what driving times and rest periods are all about, and that means the safety not just of drivers, but of all other road users too.
We have also simplified and clarified certain terms. It was a curious experience to discover that, even though we were talking about driving times and rest periods in road transport, nobody had ever defined what is meant by ‘driving time’. We also, though, did more important things than that, in that we made it quite plain that the whole time spent either driving or resting must be capable of being monitored. More might, of course, have been expected, but the stipulation that sleeping time adds up to 9 hours plus 3, or 9 hours as such, then that is by far preferable to the 8 + 1 + 1 + 1 that applied before. I think that the proposals that the Council made in this respect were quire right too. A driver knows how much of a break he has to take after four and a half hours, whether it be 15 or 30 minutes, without all the rules that applied hitherto. Speaking as one who comes from a border area, I can say that you only have to imagine the thousands of people who are using the roads, speaking different languages, with different ways of expressing themselves, and so there have to be people to keep tabs on them all.
Where the journey recorders are concerned, we still have the old model of oral contact, with someone having to ask: what is actually meant by what the recorder says? Making these things capable of being checked – so that both the driver and the person doing the checking know what is coming to them – is, as I see it, a really important advance. I think we have made a few things in this connection abundantly clear.
There is a whole lengthy story behind the tachograph itself. We had already asked a few questions on behalf of the Commission, but we would have preferred to have wrapped up the whole business with the digital journey recorder as long ago as August 2004. I have to say, though, Commissioner, that your clear statements over the past weeks sent a clear message to the outside world.
It matters not so much whether this is done one year earlier or later; what matters is that the Commission should make it clear that those who have not got it fixed by a given date, those who have not fitted these new journey recorders into new vehicles, will have problems in their own country and problems with their business operations. I take it as read that you too will do the work you have announced and say that there will be no more indulgence.
It would be not only a pity but would also send the wrong message if the countries that have done what needs to be done were to end up indirectly penalising their businesses as a result of the countries that have failed to do so getting away with it – and we know which countries have not done their preparatory work.
I am much obliged to the Commissioner for, as I see it, sending a clear signal that our primary concern, where driving times and rest periods are concerned, is with safety followed in second place by unfair competition. It is because of these two dimensions that the whole transport sector is united in backing initiatives of this kind, for it is not acceptable that, tomorrow, it should be those, in this industry, who do not abide by the law who earn the most money. With the backing of the majority, all countries will eventually take the same approach."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples