Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-06-15-Speech-2-016"

PredicateValue (sorted: default)
rdf:type
dcterms:Date
dcterms:Is Part Of
dcterms:Language
lpv:document identification number
"en.20100615.4.2-016"2
lpv:hasSubsequent
lpv:speaker
lpv:spokenAs
lpv:translated text
"Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the matter we are discussing today relates to an absolutely fundamental question: do we in the European Parliament want to ensure that we have a social Europe with fair competition and decent working conditions? Or will we allow the market and the laws of chance to reign in a transport industry that is coming more and more under pressure? For us in the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance and in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs here in Parliament, there is no doubt at all. We want self-employed drivers to be included in the Working Time Directive. Thus, we reject the Commission’s proposal to exclude self-employed drivers, for the following three reasons. Firstly, self-employed drivers need to be covered by working time regulations so that we can ensure traffic safety in Europe. With a lorry weighing a tonne behind them, it is absolutely essential to put a limit on their working time to avoid tired drivers and accidents. Secondly, we want to ensure fair competition within the transport industry. In recent years, we have seen an enormous growth in the number of ‘false’ self-employed drivers. This has been the industry’s solution to avoid the working time regulations. As legislators, we must not create incentives for there to be more self-employed drivers in Europe. Instead, we must ensure that there are uniform rules so that we create a level playing field. Thirdly, we want to ensure a good working environment for everyone. From EU studies, we know that self-employed drivers are sick more often and are more stressed than employed drivers. Is this a reasonable state of affairs from the point of view of health and safety? We do not think so. A great deal has been said about this directive, and many incorrect things have been said. I would like to dispel two myths. Firstly, there is the myth concerning administrative work. Office work does not form part of the regulation, and it is very important to establish that fact. We should bury this myth. Secondly, there is the myth concerning enforcement. I have heard my fellow Members say that it would not be possible to enforce this directive. To these Members, I would simply say that we have a digital tachograph that can provide the measurements. It currently does this for employed drivers, so clearly it can also do so for self-employed drivers. Finally, I would just like to say a few words to Mrs Bauer. As shadow rapporteur for the Greens, I have been very disappointed in how the process has been carried out recently. Mrs Bauer broke all the good rules of negotiation, she broke the ‘code of conduct’ of this House and now she is presenting what she calls a compromise. As far as I am concerned, this is her responsibility – it is not a compromise that is valid for Parliament. It is her filthy proposal that she has produced with the Council by skirting all of the rules. I would like to finish by saying that this is not about Mrs Bauer’s negotiation methods; it is about people and it is about whether we want to ensure decent conditions in an increasingly pressurised transport industry. This is something that I hope everyone in Parliament will support when we vote tomorrow."@en1
lpv:videoURI

Named graphs describing this resource:

1http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/English.ttl.gz
2http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Events_and_structure.ttl.gz
3http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/spokenAs.ttl.gz

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph