Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, speaking on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party , I would like first to thank the rapporteur for his work. This directive replaces the one dating from 1988. It relates to the monitoring of social regulations. The adjustment was more than necessary because there has been, in the interim, considerable progress, not only at the level of the regulatory framework as such, but also in the context of the technical facilities for monitoring. We can all agree on one thing, namely that social measures essentially have the purpose of improving employment conditions, avoiding distortions of the market and improving safety, and that the directives that we have drafted for this purpose only make sense if they are implemented and monitored. In particular, those of us who live on the border between Belgium and Germany, where we see thousands and thousands of lorries passing each day, know that transport is a cross-border affair and calls for solutions at European level. Not only the drivers but also the companies expect that in the various countries they will be charged and monitored under the same rules of the game. Coming a few days before enlargement, I see this Directive as having particular importance. It provides a partial answer to the question whether enlargement, which involves different working conditions in the various countries, will distort the market. Initiatives of this kind are intended, in particular, to avoid this. On the basic considerations, we all agree. I regard minor differences of opinion – which have indeed been mentioned – as matters of detail, because the Group of the European People’s Party is advocating realistic and viable controls. This relates to the working days – to which the rapporteur has just referred – and also to the distribution between road and works controls. These controls are intended to promote efficiency and should not lead to firms being charged too much. The figures that are to be monitored are of course the driving and rest times. With regard to working times, we know very well that, unfortunately, the interpretation is so different from one Member State to another that in some cases it is relatively hard to monitor this correctly in each country. The sanctions as such were also part of a debate as to what should be regarded as serious and what not. However, it is clear that exchange between countries must take place, that the auditors must apply the same type of monitoring and that their equipment must be compatible. Finally, I would like to say that I see this directive as raising the quite fundamental question of whether all these details, which we are discussing here, are necessary? Would these details be necessary if the Member States were actually to put into practice their conviction that directives only work if they are monitored? Almost all Member States take safety, improvement of working conditions and the removal of unfair competition as their watchwords. Why do not all Member States monitor in the same way and why do they not all give the monitoring authorities the same technical facilities that they need? If they were to do so, there would be no great need for details, and then part of this directive would perhaps also be superfluous.

Political group: PPE-DE