Pillar 1 Enforcement and implementation Issues For Drivers Brussells , April 3. & 4. 2012

1. Pillar 1 Enforcement and implementation Issues For Drivers Brussells, April 3. & 4. 2012 AFT-IFTIM

2. Objectives of the Directive

3. Implementation: a sharedresponsability • The professionaldriver is at the heart of a set of systems implying a multiplicity of stakeholders: the company (at a larger scale the economy), the social partners, the training providers, …the Member States, the EU. • It is in the interest of all stakeholdersthat the objectives of the Directive are met: improvement of road safety, skilled drivers, fuel savings, …

4. A transposition thatgeneratesparticularisms The Directive gives space to Member States in transposing that gives rise to a broad interpretation and a variety of situations: • Profiles of trainers (“instructors qualifications”) • Periodic training programmes: • Modular system • ADR courses certified for periodic training • Practical courses and driving not widespread • examination at the end of periodic training

5. Initial qualification - Examination and tests • In option 1 (course attendance and test), the directive gives the Member States the freedom to choose a written or oral test. • Most have chosen multiple choice questions with an average duration of 45 mn, except in Spain where the duration is 100 mn. • Pass marks for the theory tests, examples: • Conditions of retest: retest must be carried out within 6 months to one year: in the Czech Republic, the trainee can retest 3 times but from the second, he must retrain the subject he/she failed; ,

6. Initial qualification - Examination and tests • In option 2 (test only), tests are divided in 2 parts: • Theoretical test consisting of questions (multiple-choice questions, questions, …) AND case studies (minimum duration of 4 hours). • A practical test consisting of a driving test (minimum duration of 90 minutes) and a practical test (minimum duration of 30 minutes). • But practices varies from one State to another: • candidates in Slovenia and UK have only 30 mn of practical test. • passmarks are differentamongMember States: Belgium: (100 MCQ +…): 80% for the theory test UK (100 MCQ +…): 80% for the theory test Ireland (100 MCQ +…): 61% for the theory test Slovenia (30 MCQ): 60% for the theorytest, • conditions of retest are alsodifferent: the candidate canretestwithin 6 months to threeyears (Belgium: validity of the theoritical test is 3 years)

7. Examinationpass rates • Too few answerscollected on this issue to determine if averagepass rates for drivers taking the exams only option are lower or higherthanthosetaking the compulsory training plus test option • However, candidates to initial qualification in option 2 have to train before passing the test. As this training is not compulsory, the costisunknown, even if itis not supposed to reach the level of compulsory training in option 1 Member States.

8. Periodic training - Examination and tests • Theparagraph 13 of the introductory preamble states that Member States or their designated entities “should be responsible for organizing the testsprovided for in connection with the initial qualification AND the periodic training”. • In a few Member States (Cyprus, Estonia, Hungary), periodic training is validated under the conditions that trainees successfully pass the tests. Failure to the tests implies that the driver is (legally) unable to perform the job and might loose his/her job.

9. Periodictraining deadlines (1/2) • Criteriaadopted by Member States to make sure drivers undergoperiodic training in due time and to avoidbottlenecks: • Date of birth : in Denmark, authorities have set the birthday as point of reference to organise periodic training. • Age : in Portugal, the age of drivers is the chosencriteria for planning periodic training • Until 10 Sept. 2011 : drivers under 30 yearsold; • Until 10 Sept. 2012 : drivers rangingbetween 31 and 40 yearsold; • Until 10 Sept. 2013 : drivers rangingbetween 41 and 50 yearsold; • Until 10 Sept. 2015 : drivers over 50 yearsold. • Date of issuance of the driving licence (e.g. Bulgaria) • Last digit of the identitycard (Spain)

10. Periodictraining deadlines (2/2) • Difficulty in recognition of national timetables (periodic training deadlines): case of austrianhauliersthat have complained about drivers that have been fined in Slovenia. • Impact of delayedperiodic training starting date: • higherrisk of bottleneckswhenapproaching deadlines; • riskthat all drivers will not complete in a good time theirperiodic training; • highriskthat drivers who have not undergoneperiodic training mightbesanctioned in case of control. • But what about the situation of drivers that have not been able to achieve the Periodic Training due to lack of training capacities in theMember State in whichthey have their normal residence? How willbedistributed the responsability?

11. Mutual recognition of qualification Article 10 of Directive 2003/59/EC providesthat proof of CPC (initial qualification or completedperiodic training) is the Code 95 on driving licence or the Driver qualification card (DQC). Survey indicateswidespreadmutual recognition of initial qualification, even if a few Member States indicated not to considervalid a CPC obtained in anotherMember State. The main difficultyisrelated to the periodic training, when not undergone and completed in one single member State: the host Member State has to check the information in the Member State of origin; the process of checkingis long and implies time and a certain financialburden. Necessity to tend to a homogenouscertificate for all training providers and to set up a centralized information mechanismmanaged by the Authorities in charge of issuing the CPC in eachMember State.

12. Exchange of informations • Usefulness of creating an IT toolenabling the exchange of information. Such a toolwouldgreatlyfacilitatemutual recognition becauseitwould: • Guaranteesecureaccess to Code 95 related information to competentauthorities/bodies; • EnableTrans-Europeanswift control over drivers’ conforming to Directive provisions; • Allow for quick notice of member States particularities, e.g.different deadlines set for periodic training set by Member States. • According to Dutchrespondents, the Commission’sview on thismatteristhat the initiative for an information exchange solution should come frommember States and shouldbenegotiatedbilaterally

13. Training programme Respect of the training programmes by keeping in mind the objectives of the Directive 2003/59: Road safety; Sustainablemobilitywith fuel consumptionsavings; Professionalisation of drivers; Image of the profession; … Traineesrightsto informauthoritiesin case of dysfunctionduring the training Control of the training activities for betterquality: Availability of equiment and training materials; Respect of the requireddrivinghours; ….

14. Training of trainers • The trainers are one of the key-elements of the success of implementation of the compulsory training notonly in terms of quantity but also in terms of quality. • The profiles of trainers must meet the needs and respect the requirementsdefined by law or regulation. • In Austria, the profile has been definedbut, according to a respondent, the actual situation seemsto be far fromtheory. Trainers are estimated to beunskilled and unexperienced. • In someMember States, the trainer must undergoperiodic training. According to repondents, itis the case for France, Belgium, Denmark and Hungary. • The implementation of periodic training for trainersseems to be a necessity to maintainquality, and improvequality, whereneeded.

15. Access to the profession depends on acquiring the initial qualification: compulsory training thatisexpensive and not really accessible withoutsubsidies or rough tests thatactuallyrequire training. The transport industryhas experiencedshortages of drivers. The training cost, if only bore by the driver, is an obstacle to the access to the profession. As benefitsfrom training are shared by all stakeholders, fundingmechanismsimplying all beneficiariesshouldbe set up. The funding of the training is a major issue

16. Training hours: workinghours? The question of training hoursconsidered or not as workinghours has receivedfew responses: - in Belgium, Finland, France, Lithuania, Sweden and UK, they are workinghours; - in Austria, Hungary and Slovenia, they are not considered as workinghours - in Bulgaria, itdependsmainly on eachcompanyrules; This issue is important becauseit has an impact on working conditions, and speciallyon working and rest times regulations and the possibility (or not) for the driver to undergo training withoutbreaking social regulations (whentaking a training on Saturday) afterhavingdriven the daysbefore. 16

17. Impact of the directive Most respondents do not express their opinion (anyanswer or « don’t know ») for these issues. Almosthalf of respondentssaidthatit has contributed to improve qualification levels. • 30% of respondentssaidthatit has contributed to improve the image of the profession (33% saidthatitdid not). • Half of respondentssaidthatit has not contributed to facilitaterecruitments. • The issue of road safety has not been addressed (tooearly to getmeasures), • This argues for the implementation of qualitative or quantitative measuringtools of the impact of the Directive 2003/59.

18. Labour market information Importance to access to information about drivers for implementation and development of training but also to avoidhuge fluctuations on labour market. Questions that have collectedno or rare answers and which are essential for the labour market knowledge and employment and training policies: Number of drivers that have achievedtheirperiodic training Number of drivers that have undergone « bridging » training courses Number of approved training centres Number of drivers (and theircharacteristics: age, years of experience, ….)