Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-04-11-Speech-1-131"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050411.18.1-131"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, at the very outset, I would like – sincerely and not as a mere polite formality – to thank my comrades in arms, in particular Mr Ioannis Damis, Mr Achim Haug, and also the shadow rapporteurs who have been with me for some considerable time, from the time when we drew up Parliament’s position for first reading, and who, with me, are now taking matters further following the Council’s Common Position for second reading.
It is cause for gratitude that this House has rightly, and by a substantial majority, endorsed the incorporation of vehicles under 3.5 tonnes within the scope of this directive; rightly, in our view, for this directive is not limited to categories of vehicles by weight, which, to some extent, the Council and the Commission wanted to tell us it was. Instead, it has a purpose, one to which all vehicles operating in this field must be subject. We have put forward a compromise proposal stating that we will allow an exemption within a radius of 60 km, which means that these vehicles can operate within this radius without a digital tachograph being fitted.
On the assumption that I have not misunderstood what was said in our debates with the Council, working time appears to be a major problem. It often happens in the haulage business that professional drivers not only drive the vehicle on the road, but also load and unload it, and also that, when they arrive at their destinations, they have to help with stevedoring. It follows that, if you give priority to road safety and social protection, you simply have to accept checks on these things too.
Having failed to get its regulation on the digital tachograph finished in time, the Council had originally incorporated these leftovers – as I like to call them – into the regulation on rest and driving times. Things do indeed sometimes take a fortunate turn, for I believe that the Council has an interest in bringing that too to a successful conclusion, and so Parliament has a good chance and is also in a strong position. Where the control directive is concerned, it is unfortunate that the Council, at first reading, rejected almost everything we proposed. It simply makes no sense at all. We have no use for a directive on driving times and rest periods if we do not wish to have any means whereby these may be checked up on. A distinction has to be drawn between road-side checks and on-site checks, as the different stages have to be checked in different ways. When checking on-site, though, working times can also be checked; it is possible to look through the sickness records and the leave sheets, thus seeing what else the drivers have been doing during the period in question.
None of that makes any sense if there is no common definition of what serious offences are. Such a definition is indispensable if we are to be able subsequently to analyse penalties in order eventually to equalise and harmonise them across the European Union, for it is not acceptable that something should be permitted in one Member State while being prohibited in another.
I would therefore like to call on the Council – which is not present, but will perhaps read this later on – to get a move on; we want this regulation and we want this directive, but not at any price. Our clear and unmistakeable message to the Council must be that Parliament will not stand for that. If the political will is there, we will agree. If the political will is not there, it is not from Parliament that it is absent – on the contrary, it is present there – but from the Council.
I would also like to thank the Commission, even though, on some points, we sometimes occupied positions at some distance from one another, and also the Council, despite the fact that the final result we have so far – with its various stages – gives me but little satisfaction. I will be considering that in more detail later on. It has to be said, though, that the Council Presidency was certainly always trying hard.
What should we be visualising? Here we are with what I will call, for the sake of simplicity – for the official nomenclature is very confusing – the rest and driving times regulation and the control directive. What is the point of them? What do we need them for? At the present time – one may or may not find it regrettable, but it is in any case a fact – goods are largely transported by road. At the present time, social regulations are in fact in permanent decline, and some of that decline has been set down in black and white by the Commission itself. We have set ourselves a target, of halving the number of accidental deaths by 2010, and what that boils down to is that we want road safety to have greater prominence as a major issue. That means that these two directives must help to balance road safety, social provision and equality in competition against one another, something about which our various groups have very definitely divergent views, one stressing one thing and another putting the emphasis elsewhere.
The way the Committee voted did, however, show beyond any doubt that there is nevertheless a broad consensus among this House’s transport policy-makers as regards the rest and driving times regulation, which was adopted by two thirds of the votes, while the control directive received almost four fifths.
While all the parliamentary debates were going on, though, we were of course also stimulated by what we term the extra-parliamentary debates, strenuous and wide-ranging though some of these were, and it clearly follows that the European Trades Union Congress and the Road Hauliers’ Association necessarily have different views on the subject. I do, however, believe that their demands and aspirations can, in the final analysis, be united around a common objective, but differences of emphasis on what was excessive meant that opinions varied.
Let me start with the regulation on rest and driving times. What positive results have been achieved so far? A flexible week was proposed, and rejected. We brought the calendar week back; that has been agreed on. We have also, of course, agreed that this regulation is to be incorporated in the AETR Agreement. There was disagreement, though, as to how this is to be done, as to how much pressure we have to build up, for Parliament has stated quite unequivocally – and that, too, I see as absolutely necessary – that this regulation must be fundamental, and that all who travel on the European Union’s roads, no matter from which country they come, must comply with it, and with no delay whatsoever. That will help safety and, above all, fair competition.
As early as at first reading, and again now, we have been able to agree among ourselves, and I do of course hope that Wednesday’s vote will make that a matter of record. The driving time we have stipulated – 90 hours in two weeks, but no more than 56 hours in a week – is still a considerable one. By it we have guaranteed the flexibility that road transport needs. At the same time, though, we have ensured that, when considered over the space of two weeks, it can be regarded as an acceptable amount from the point of view of safety.
In response to the Commission proposal and also to the Council, we in this House have brought in definitions that the Council and the Commission have not themselves come up with. If we are to have a regulation on rest and driving times, we must at least say what driving time actually is, and so this House has made a great effort to make up for those things that are lacking in ways that the legislator itself could have done. I can understand how there can be different viewpoints where definitions are concerned. There is no mistaking the fact that Parliament came to an agreement on them. Those who neither want nor like the proposed definitions have the opportunity to suggest others. That is a course of action more appropriate to a parliament than simply rejecting the proposal and being unwilling to accept any.
Where rest periods are concerned, the majority in this House is of one mind; we want 12 hours. We do, though, very much want a degree of flexibility in the way these rest periods are observed, staggered and apportioned – I might add that that is what the drivers themselves say, and if you talk to their union, you will get that confirmed. It is also feasible. The Council did come up with a proposal on break times that I thought was a good one; although it was amended by the Committee, I regard the result as a workable variant. It makes it clear that you can indeed take different views on different points and nonetheless end up with a proper result on which you can all agree, but, all the same, we are still left with a number of problems that will not be so easy to resolve, and I will now list them for the sake of clarity."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples