Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-05-15-Speech-2-348"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010515.14.2-348"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, the problem of cheap labour from elsewhere versus more costly labour carried out by EU subjects has, in connection with the pending enlargement, been in the news rather a lot in the last few weeks, and with good reason. Labour costs of non-EU-subjects are significantly lower than those of EU workers. According to some members of the Council, this could lead to inevitable tension within the labour market.
Mr President, if we accept this proposal, that does not mean that all problems involving non-EU drivers will be a thing of the past. The existing CEMT and bilateral agreements offer – also for EU businesses – ample scope for using drivers from third countries on international transport within the EU. That is why I would like to end my speech by calling on the Member States to keep sight of this proposal’s cardinal concept in the negotiations surrounding this licensing scheme.
That concern is not totally unfounded. At least, if we consider the transport sector. In that sector, certain international carriers make use of drivers from third countries for cross-border transport within Europe. These drivers mainly hail from Eastern Europe and beyond and put much less heavy pressure on the labour costs of a company than do their European colleagues.
There are a number of reasons why non-EU drivers can be active within the Community transport market. First of all, there are international agreements, such as the CEMT, as well as bilateral agreements which grant Eastern European businesses access to the Community market. Thanks to these agreements, businesses from outside the EU are allowed to carry out international transport within the European Union, in a restricted manner or not, as the case may be. Secondly, non-EU drivers can drive Community vehicles, provided that they have the necessary licences.
This last aspect, in particular, is the subject of debate in this report. In practice, it appears complex to verify across the EU whether the documents which a non-EU driver produces at an inspection point are the correct ones, in other words, whether this person has been employed legally and whether all social conditions have been fulfilled in the process. This difficulty has led to all kinds of practices in which non-EU drivers work for Community businesses illegally and under social conditions which are considerably worse than those enjoyed by their EU colleagues. This results in distortion of competition between EU businesses and, understandably, protests among EU drivers.
That is why the Commission has proposed introducing a uniform driver attestation for all drivers who drive lorries from Community businesses. This attestation – equivalent to the Community licence for international transport within the EU – is then proof that, for the relevant driver, legislation and social conditions which apply to the business in the country where it is established, have been met. The attestation does not detail the content of those conditions, but merely their application in terms of working conditions.
According to the Commission proposal, this attestation should be introduced for all drivers who work for Community businesses. This means that certain routine actions, specifically the use of more than one driver from different Member States for a lorry during one journey, would be rendered more difficult. In addition, the wholesale introduction of this attestation into the EU will entail a considerable administrative burden, because an extensive number of attestations are to be issued in a very short space of time. Bearing in mind that the key goal of this measure is to thwart the use of so-called ‘illegal’ non-EU drivers for lorries of EU businesses, the scope of this proposal appears to be somewhat on the generous side.
That is why most members of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism are of the opinion that the scheme should in the first instance be restricted to drivers from third countries. In that way, the root of the problem is addressed, and the administrative burden, which could delay the implementation of the proposal, is reduced.
In addition, according to that same majority of the Transport Committee, this scheme should – without evaluation – apply to all drivers who drive lorries of EU businesses, two years after the introduction of the attestation for third-country drivers. A major argument in favour of this decision is the assumed irregularity in their working conditions, too.
If the attestation were also to apply to EU drivers, this would create an entirely transparent situation in which national proof of employment could be replaced by the attestation. It would then be important to resist the increasing pressure on the content of working conditions and not to allow competitive pressure in the sector eventually to end up as a burden upon drivers."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples