Proposition 50K1880

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 3 mai 1999 relative au transport de choses par route et la loi du 14 juillet 1991 sur les pratiques du commerce et sur l'information et la protection du consommateur.

General information ¶

Submitted by

Groen Open Vld Vooruit PS | SP Ecolo MR Verhofstadt Ⅰ

Submission date

June 25, 2002

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

consumer protection road transport

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld N-VA MR FN VB

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

Feb. 19, 2003 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, I will allow myself to present a fairly comprehensive report of the committee’s work with regard to this bill.

First of all, we must remember where it comes from. The law of 3 May 1999 had already improved the regulation of the sector, in particular by restructuring the legislation, adapting it to the European regulation, ensuring better control of access to the profession, simplifying the licensing systems and laying the foundation for the co-responsibility of the order-giver, the loader, the auxiliary and finally, by creating an advisory committee in the sector.

Following the carrier strike that impressed us all in September 2000, and in order to address the problems it highlighted, an agreement was reached between the Minister of Mobility and Transport, the Ministers of Social Affairs, Finance and Economy and the social partners of the sector to give new perspectives to the transport sector.

The working group, which was set up after the strike and after this agreement, has therefore adopted a report containing various measures.

This Action Plan of 20 November 2001 was in fact aimed at the collaboration between the various control services in order to better coordinate the controls in the field of road transport of persons and goods. It also contained a set of measures to promote fair competition. The plan also envisaged an exchange of information, a federal cell and provincial coordination cells, an organigram, vade-mecum and, above all, the creation of a database.

Finally, this evaluation report considers it essential to improve the provisions on co-responsibility and wished an increased role for the Transport Advisory Committee as the regulatory body of the sector. It also aimed to develop a system aimed at combating the abusively low prices that appeared in the whole of a sector-specific problem. The draft law submitted to our review tends to ⁇ these objectives.

It aims, on the one hand, to clarify the system of training, access to training, to increase the effectiveness of the controls and prosecutions that follow, to introduce a true co-responsibility, the only way to fight against unfair competition and its pernicious effects.

It also aims — and this is the whole spirit of the “rainbow” government — to introduce some administrative simplification and to assign a more dynamic role to the advisory committee.

During the general discussions, all members of the committee present highlighted the interest that this project had for the sector and the fact that it had been the subject of an agreement with the various actors in this transport sector.

Mrs Brepoels made some reservations, both on the conditions for the approval of training centres, on the training of officials in charge of this training, on the compensation of these officials and on some issues related to car letters.

To this, the minister replied that in fact, the sector had already made very large efforts, both at the level of training and road safety, and that it itself was trying, within the framework of Europe, to reach a better coordination.

She also announced a royal decree that specified the selection criteria for the different driving training centers.

by Mr. Schalck highlighted the issue of co-responsibility and the fact that competition must remain fair in a sector that is widely open to competition. He also emphasized the road safety that this bill could bring as one of the positive points of this project. Ms. De Cock felt that the project was favorable. She also highlighted the issue of road safety, as well as the issue of the large membership of the professional sector and the expectation that this project raised. by Mr. Bellot raised the problem of Europe. He agrees for a better consideration of responsibility and to fight against unfair competition but Belgium is enclaved in a European context, we are very quickly from border to border. Therefore, we must also move forward on the European level because this is a sine qua non condition for this law to become effective. He also found positive the advances that the project highlighted but questioned its realisation, the difficulty of its implementation. It raised the aspect of road safety and protection of the different road users and raised the question of the suppression of unfair competition by calling for more precision. by Mr. Depreter also raised the issue of regulation, control and better information for the entire sector. by

The Minister responded in the framework of the general debate by addressing the issue of driver training, also addressing the question of the efforts already made by the sector for greater road safety. She also highlighted the fact that the professional transport sector had signed its agreement. Obviously, there had been reluctance in the head of the FEB, related to co-responsibility and the definition of this co-responsibility. This point will be the subject of important discussions during the discussion of the articles. by

The project clearly aims to sanitize the sector and limit unfair competition. Therefore, processes were needed to highlight and reduce it. It was necessary to explain that this co-responsibility, which seemed to pose problems to some, was not only a kind of witch hunt, but that it was necessary to respect a just balance and not to burden one part rather than the other. It was necessary to fight against an abusively low-price policy when it is manifest and repeated. A large-scale fraud should be avoided. The fraud has to be proven. by

At the examination of the articles, there was almost no exchange of views for the first of them except on the problem of the administrative burden and the burden of proof and this co-responsibility. It was actually about simplifying the administrative level and providing better tools for the different order-givers and carriers so that this co-responsibility is shared in a fair and equitable way. The articles go in that direction. Articles 2 to 10 did not raise any problems or comments. They covered vocational training, licenses, withdrawal of licenses, judicial police, investigation and detection of offences, competent courts and a series of provisions whose transgression is punishable.

Article 12 was the subject of a passionate and exciting debate. While we were already in the examination of Article 15, Mr. Anonymous who had apologized and Mr. Somers joined us and asked us to be able to reopen the examination of Articles 12 and following. The Chairman of the Commission has expressed his agreement on this issue and I thank him for this. by

by Mr. Bellot questioned the issue of co-responsibility and the use of the same vehicle by different customers. It also raised the question of whether, in case of co-responsibility, we would not face a possible relocation. He repeated that Belgium is enclaved in Europe. Finally, in terms of co-responsibility, he once again called for a more European legislation and for a balance between the different actors. by

As for mr. Depreter, insisting on the fact that Belgium is crossed by foreign carriers, wondered if it would not be difficult to exercise control over these foreign companies settling on our market.

by Mr. Somers submitted a series of amendments aimed in particular to clarify this co-responsibility. According to him, it was necessary that the "non-intentional" criterion be retained; it was necessary to try to prove that it was not intentional, that it was due to a lack of precaution and precaution. He asked how a small and medium-sized enterprise could have all the elements to verify that the documents are in order and that licenses are granted for the transport carried out at its request or at the request of a third party. by

Personally, I do not have much knowledge regarding the transport sector. This allows me to say that we have had a fairly instructive exchange on the methodology of the sector, its habits that are relatively known to all the protagonists and the practices in force between the orderer, customer and carrier. by

by Mr. Somers insisted on this balance between the carrier and the orderer. He also wanted to avoid witch hunting. It was not necessary that the judges "seek the little beast" and all the possibilities to penalize transport companies and customers are not necessarily equipped to verify all the necessary documents. Small and medium-sized enterprises should also have access to the right information. by

The Minister responded to all these observations in a comprehensive and circumstantiated manner. It indicated that the law did not change the scope of the 1999 Act, and that it did not relocate the responsibilities of the carrier to the sponsor. She added that it was necessary to share things between partners and that the ordering authority essentially had an obligation of means. She also specified that, aware of the problems that could arise, the administration had developed a highly performing computerized service, active from 1 February 2003. This system must enable the verification of licensing patents; thus, any orderer will be able to verify in situ and at the same time whether the undertaking to which it wishes to resort has access to the license and meets the required criteria. by

This site will be updated regularly and constitutes the most elaborate version of these criteria. This is in some way a responsibility that the State establishes because it is about strengthening this co-responsibility. The State also had to provide a effective tool to respond to these fully legitimate concerns of Mr. and Somers.

There were various exchanges of information. The amendments were not accepted in the sense that they aimed rather to increase the administrative burden and procedures, while we were in a reverse phase that was an administrative simplification and the development of an IT tool. It was better to use the best and give good information on the new tool that the ministry makes available to the sector.

A second big problem, also interesting because it is a matter of substance, was the issue of abusively low prices. How can we evaluate it, Mr. Well, a low price? by Mr. Somers replied that if one has an effect of aubaine, if for example one can benefit from an empty return, if one has a favorable circumstance, if the company, exceptionally, gives a flower to another company, is it not abusive? Is it not exaggerated to be able to file a complaint on the basis of a single finding of an abusively low price? The Minister responded at several levels. I would like to point out here that the Chairman of the Commission, who is part of the insurance and transport sector, also informed us about the practices of the sector. It is true that market prices are known in the industry, they are regularly reviewed. There is a reference standard. It is well known if one benefits from a low price, an exceptional price, or if, on the contrary, one uses a transport company that, systematically, practices low prices. The problem of the spirit of the law was repeatedly recalled in the context of the discussion. It is not a question of limiting a possibility of abuse or an exception, as long as it may exist in this sector. It is about fighting with legal means and therefore being able to file a complaint against a practice that is seen in the sector, which has been repeatedly denounced and which was the subject of this action plan of which I talked at the beginning of the report. This practice ultimately aims to disrupt fair competition and to practice pricing that leads to unfair competition. It is against this unfair competition that it is about to fight, and not against a company that, at a given moment, can benefit from an abuse effect. I think the spirit of the law is very clear.

We had a discussion about what we could accept as amendments. Shouldn’t we accept the plural when we repeatedly see a low-price offer? Isn’t a single one too demanding? On the Dutch-speaking side, the language being quite open, Mr. Ansoms found the solution by saying that it is a neutral: "vervoer", it is neutral. So, it is well known that the spirit of the law will be that it will target companies that do work of disloyalty and systematically low prices. On the French side, Mr. Borrow who saved us by simply saying that “one”, “one”, “of”, “of” are indefinite items. Therefore, they also underpin the spirit of the plural.

In the event of an abnormally or exceptionally low price, a complaint may be filed. It will be up to the judge to verify whether it is a norm, a regular practice and therefore illegal or, of an exceptional effect, an abuse.

In my view, one cannot speak of a witch hunt. It is about putting at the disposal of a sector a tool that allows it to set itself rules. Therefore, it is not about filing a complaint anywhere, any way. The Minister recalled the example of France where a single complaint was filed in succession to observations. There are some differences in the semantic analysis of the text. Thus, by wisdom and due to the difficulty of verifying the exact scope of the amendment, the amendments having been submitted at the last minute, Mr. Ansoms suggested that we vote on the original text.

It was difficult to modify a text without knowing its scope and without knowing whether the amendment would reduce the scope of the text. Indeed, since it was a plural, it would have had to make several illegal price findings of the same company in order to be able to file a complaint. We had to decide, which was difficult.

In order to avoid improvisation and a deficit of scope, this text having been the subject of an agreement between all stakeholders and an agreement within the government, we have opted for the original text. The text was adopted without this amendment. On the other hand, we adopted an amendment concerning the entry into force of the draft, as well as an amendment concerning Article 2. The bill was adopted by 8 votes in favor and one abstention.

You stop your role as a speaker to speak as a speaker.

Since the year 2000, this project has been the subject of important discussions. It is expected by the professional sector; it improves the working conditions of drivers, the clarity of the sector and the competition that exists in this sector very open to international competition; it regulates this sector and guarantees more road safety, better consideration of the safety of all. This problem was denounced during a truck drivers strike.

Despite the clutter of the end of the debate, I aspire that all those who have communicated their interest in this project, both the majority and the opposition, join this project as it was voted in the committee. I think the professional sector will be grateful.

I repeat that it is not about delaying this bill. Since the urgency had not been requested in the committee, we examined it at the time. This project is bicameral, i.e. it must still pass to the Senate. In my view, it is our political responsibility to move things forward where we are able to do it.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, this will be a short discourse to say that the CD&V group will fully support the bill. This is not always the case with proposals that come from Ms. Durant but if it is good, we also say it is good. We will demonstrate this with a vote for the draft.

This draft law addresses a whole range of technical problems related to the transport of goods. The most fundamental reason why we agree that the legislative change is implemented is the co-responsibility of the contractors and the shipers of the freight transport. With this co-responsibility, we aim to ⁇ three goals. By reducing the pressure of the carrier, by placing co-responsibility on the clients and/or the shippers, we believe that a greater road safety can indeed be achieved. There can also be a better socio-economic accessibility in our country and we can come to a better social protection for truck drivers.

The freight transport sector is on the one hand with a great explosive rise in prices and on the other hand with falling freight prices. You understand that competition is killing in the sector. The result of this murderous competition in the transport sector is that those in the weakest position, the driver in his truck cabin, are the most under pressure, with all the consequences thereof: non-respecting traffic rules, non-respecting driving and rest times, overloading trucks, poorly loading trucks, and so on. This undermines road safety. You just need to read the newspapers: many of the serious accidents are caused by truck drivers who in some way do not take too close to the traffic rules. Accidents with heavy trucks usually also result in major file problems as a result. This negatively affects the availability of all kinds of destinations, especially socially-economically. When a serious accident occurs on the Ring of Antwerp or on one of the entrance routes to Antwerp as a result of, for example, the overload of a truck, or of a truck that has gone out of the curve, one can often not reach the port of Antwerp for hours. I do not need to tell you how high the socio-economic and financial costs of it are.

The result of the situation is also that the salary and working conditions for truck drivers have become unattractive. This results in a shortage of truck drivers, which requires those who are already truck drivers to perform more hours, which is irresponsible from a social and family perspective.

In short, it is clear that the increasing competition has many negative effects on road safety, on accessibility and on the social and family life of truck drivers. Therefore, we must do everything we can to remove some pressure on the weakest link, the drivers of the transport companies, and to spread some responsibilities.

This is not new. Also in the law of 1999, put forward by the previous government and approved here, that was also the intention.

Even then we sought to find a difficult balance between contractors and shippers, on the one hand, and transport companies, on the other. I worked intensively on this from the majority and I have tried to solve this problem. After all, I do not think that too quickly and too quickly the truck driver or the transport company can unnecessarily transfer their responsibility to the client and the carrier. Therefore, at that time, the notion of "knowledge and wills" was entered into the law. This means that a client or a carrier who knowingly and intentionally breaks the road can be addressed.

After three, four years of experience, it has been shown that the concept does not actually work. The law speaks of co-responsibility, but it is never pronounced in practice because it is legally difficult or not enforceable. Therefore, the Minister has attempted, in consultation with the sector, to better write out the text and to knowingly and intentionally replace the concept with a better description of the respective responsibilities. I am not ashamed to admit that at that time I was at the foundation of the concept of consciousness and will, and that I was at the wrong end. I had the best intentions, but I admitted that later it turned out that this was not good. Therefore, I confess that I was wrong and that I now support the Minister’s approach and agree with a better description.

That is why we agree with the content of this bill. Finally, I would like to say that thanks to the opposition, especially CD&V and the Flemish Blok, a majority was found in the committee that was sympathetic to the draft of Minister Durant. If the members of the opposition had not remained present in the committee and if we had not approved this bill, then this discussion would not have continued now. I would like to make it clear that we, from the opposition, take our responsibility. If we can contribute to greater road safety, to greater humanity in traffic and to improve the family and social life of motorists, we can always count on supporting an initiative in that sense. This is characteristic of Christian democracy. We will always fully support such proposals, even if they come from Minister Durant, if they improve road safety as well as the family and family life of the drivers. That is why we support this project.

It is a tradition to give the members of the committee the last word.

Mr. Speaker, with all my respect for the tradition, but I should leave a little earlier.

Do you want the word after Mrs. De Cock and for Mr. Depreter?

Mr. President of the Council. If Mr. Depreter is of course in agreement. Please apologize, Mr. Depreter, but I have to leave the meeting earlier.

Then we will hear first Mrs. De Cock and then Mr. Van den Eynde.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, the last comment of Mr. Ansoms I attribute to the common sense of the opposition.

My speech will be short. For us, this bill is primarily about road safety, more specifically about its human aspect, such as time pressure, work pressure, competitive pressure. It is also about a fair competitive position for all.

Road transport, i.e. trucks, by their peculiarity — the height, the length, the weight, the agility and the rear distance — have a major impact on road safety. I think, for example, of collisions of weak road users or riding on the tail of the file, as was the case at the beginning of this week. The risks of serious consequences are much greater than in passenger cars. I know this is a cliché, but when these road giants also drive too fast under time pressure, do not respect the rest and driving times and are too heavy or poorly loaded under competitive pressure, then these risks are criminal.

The honest drivers — which are most transport companies and individual drivers — are fully aware of the great responsibility they have in terms of road safety. I know from my own experience, from my contacts with the sector, that they are making great efforts in this area. I can give many examples here, but I think I don’t have to convince my colleagues of this. The sector is therefore a requesting party to see its efforts supported by clear legislation.

An important element here is, as colleague Ansoms has cited, the clarification in the area of co-responsibility. This draft law removes an ambiguity from the Act of 1999 and makes it possible to co-responsible contractors, of course only when they exert unnecessary pressure on transport companies or drivers and risk safety, in particular due to poor load, insufficient rest times, too long driving times and excessive speed. Furthermore, this tightening of co-responsibility not only protects the transport sector, but also aims to provide an incentive for contracting entities to be critical in the choice of carriers to which they are addressed, and to only go on the road with bonafide carriers who comply with the rules.

I can be short in my decision. In my opinion, this bill serves different interests, such as security, ecology and economy. Agalev will therefore fully support this project.

Mr. Speaker, it is without any malicious intention, and ⁇ not in order to compromise Ms. Durant, that the Flemish Bloc group has enthusiastically supported this legislative initiative. I thought it was a good and necessary initiative. If I could criticize it, I could say that it has not gone far enough. Rome was not built in one day, it has always been taught.

Why did the Flemish Bloc support a government initiative in this case? Because we know very well what the problems the transport sector is facing at the moment.

Mr. Speaker, in fact, the origin of the debate we are holding this afternoon lies in a strike of transport companies a few years ago. You will probably remember that, among other things, they had blocked the Wetstraat. Very rightly, when one takes action, one should do it where it is felt and visible. That action in itself was a sign of the seriousness of the problem. When a carrier deliberately removes its rolling stock from circulation for a few days and deliberately does not make any financial profit with its trucks for a few days, it is because the water really reaches his lips.

Unfortunately, this is the case for the transport sector here, and for several reasons.

The first reason is related to the economic system in which we live. This system has the English name "just in time". One orders and insists that the order comes exactly on time because there are no more stocks and for all sorts of other economic reasons. That system has resulted in the transport companies being very much pressured by their clients in terms of the speed at which they must operate. The second reason why they are under pressure is that the competition since globalization and especially the liberalization of the market in Eastern Europe has become murderous in this area. The transport companies are in fact economically taken to the throat by companies based in Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, among others, because the wages there are much lower and the regulation there is much less strict, both in terms of the employment of personnel and the transport materials used. This means that there is pressure on both the working rhythm and the prices. This creates an emergency for our carriers.

I myself would like to admit that the present draft partially corrects that. In fact, if I could put it very lapidary, the initiative of Minister Durant can be compared in little to the lawMajor that protects our docks. Who has ever dared to attack this law? I think no one has ever done that.

Contrary to what happened at the committee meeting, where a rather strange alternative majority emerged from Agalev-Ecolo to the Flemish Bloc over the SP.A, the PS and the Christian Democrats, I hope — I address the liberal people’s representative who sits right in front of me — that we should not experience that the VLD will counteract the law-Major of the transport sector.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, this bill seems to us to be fundamental in so far as it concerns an economic sector open to unfettered competition. The project seeks to counteract this environment of unfair competition by introducing protection for honest companies and social protection for workers. Furthermore, I believe that this project has an important dimension in terms of road safety.

I believe that there should be unanimous vote on this draft because, initially, an agreement was reached, in September 2000, between the government and the representatives of the road transport sector. At the basis of this project, there is therefore a form of unanimousness and I think it should be ⁇ ined, especially since trade union organisations have also been widely consulted and ministerial departments have brought the necessary expertise.

I found in this text — in particular in the famous article 12 which gave rise to all the controversy — notions essential to my view, such as, for example, the abusively low prices. That’s what it’s about and that’s the price that needs to be controlled. The concept of vehicle revenue price, social obligations and administrative costs is introduced, all these concepts must be taken into account. The co-responsibility of order-givers also seems to me to be an essential notion. It was already found in this year’s general policy statements, but also in the previous year, when the notions of loading safety, driving time and maximum speed emerged, all fundamental things for our group.

I would like to speak and speak to my colleagues from the VLD. I would like to reassure them because I understand their reaction very well. Ms. Coenen talked about the overwhelmingness of how to work at a certain time. This is quite accurate. In reality, there was a fundamental unanimousness, and it is always the case, on the whole text, but it happens that during the discussion on this very important article 12, we broke up on a formula, in fact on a word. This article aims to sanction carriers in infringement. It is known that you will not be punished quickly and superficially, you will need a genuine intention of fraud. The question is when to punish. After finding the fault in the context of a transport, transport or transport? This is how we talked about a word.

I understand very well the reaction of the colleagues of the VLD. We had, in fact, reached a consensus consisting of saying: “In the end, whether it be transport, transport or transport, it does not change anything on the substance and in terms of our intention.” I thought we had a consensus on this. And it is because of an unexpected and non-significant confusion at the time of voting that we have lost this beautiful unanimity. This irritated my VLD colleagues and, I repeat, I understand them. We had a lot of discussions afterwards. Given all the comments made, we are now, I think, quite agreeing to say that, in the essence, whether it is “one”, “of” or “of” that doesn’t change anything. I think we really have an interest in ⁇ ining the unanimity that exists between us.

For the anecdote, I was obviously consulting the Grevisse — it is sometimes necessary to refresh the memory — and the rule is as follows: if one says "a transport", it is a single indefinite article; if one says "of transport", it is a plural indefinite article; and if one says "of transport", it is a partial article.

I believe that everyone will agree that between a “singular indefinite” and a “plural indefinite” there is no infinite difference and that in both cases it is always indefinite. I think this does not really change the substance of the problem.

I assume that all members of the committee have received the correspondence of Febetra, including those of the VLD; so I will not read it in extenso to you. This letter, emanating from a national federation, is also written in the three national languages. The said federation addresses us in the perspective of the 13 February assembly, asking us to vote on the text as it is, with a "singular indefinite", which apparently does not bother the bosses at all. This is in line with the agreement we had previously reached.

I repeat to all of my colleagues and especially to the VLD colleagues that I fully understand their annoyance about how to work at a certain time and I ask them, because I believe it is the obvious, to keep unanimous on the bottom.

Thank you, Mr. Depreter, you remind me of my youth, when I learned French with Grevisse as a bedbook. Grevisse who was also a remarkable grammarist for the universal French language and who was namurois.

I would like to thank Mr. Depreter in particular. I was able to improve my French again today with his brilliant explanation of that detail, which has occupied us all for a fair amount of time in the committee.

Colleagues, as regards the design, we assume that traffic is not only the responsibility of who goes on the track at that time and that is, I think, a good starting point. This is especially important when it comes to freight transport. It is a collective responsibility. It has happened too often in the past that only the driver and sometimes the transport company were held accountable. I think we are doing well now to make the contractors also accountable for the orders they give in a highly competitive and difficult market.

It is very often the impression that this design is only good for the drivers or for the transport companies. I think that is not so. I am convinced that the contractors and the companies that conduct their activities in a good and healthy way and are willing to comply with the rules of competition, as it should be, are also requesting parties for such a scheme. I was able to establish this already when I spoke with several large companies about this design. They are actually asking the party to be held accountable. They know that they will be able to compete fairly with their competitors.

Colleagues, I think that this design can make very important progress on two points. First, there is the viability of the transport sector. This sector must operate in a very competitive environment and in very difficult conditions. Second is road safety. My colleagues will not be surprised that I am especially concerned about this. We read every day that large trucks lose their load and that they are involved in road accidents. Too often it is only the driver or the transport company that is responsible for this. I think we are taking an important step forward with this design.

I would like to emphasize, by the way, that this draft came after an agreement that was also negotiated with the sector itself. In this country, we have quite a tendency to give maximum opportunities to social consultation. If that social consultation then leads to results as we get them today through this draft on our board in Parliament, then I think we are doing well from Parliament to support the social consultation, which has had its opportunities, as much as possible. Therefore, the SP.A faction will approve the design with great pleasure.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, our group had indeed a few questions in the interpretation of this bill. We had, among other things, a question on the definition of the shipper who is held responsible if orders are given at what is called unlawfully low prices. The shipper is sometimes physically responsible for the transport. However, he is not necessarily the contracting party in a contract. I wanted to clearly ask the Minister again what legal interpretation will be given to the concept of shipper. In the case of ex works sales, the seller who physically embarks or transports the goods in his warehouse is not a contracting party. After all, it is the buyer who concludes a contract with a carrier.

Furthermore, we find that the slinger in terms of co-responsibility goes very far in the opposite direction, because we accept a very special legal principle here, namely a presumed, automatic liability of a co-contractor until the contrary is proven. The "knowledge and wills" in this sense is deleted.

Third, an unlawfully low price. Since the Middle Ages, treatises, treatises are written by philosophers, economists and the like to determine what is a correct or a legitimate price. I think this has begun with Thomas of Aquino, and to this day one has not yet figured out what the right price is. I am pleased that the other factions are putting on the market the definition of an unlawfully low price or an unlawful price. As a liberal, I can only rejoice at the fact that so much confidence is placed in the market as an instrument or barometer to determine a so-called legitimate price. It is a structural price and not an occasional price because that is the problem that our group had in the interpretation of this law. It is not about transporting the structural to an unlawfully low price but even occasional, one transport. Economically, the unlawfully low price of a certain transport is possible in exceptional circumstances. There is no market price for such transport. Market prices exist where there is a sufficient volume and where there are sufficiently delimited conditions.

If a truck must return empty from a distant destination in exceptional circumstances and if the carrier wants to transport at a low price for certain, situational, occasional reasons, then we ask ourselves who will determine that price is too low? This is entirely arbitrary. This is an exercise that cannot be done. Our group has therefore proposed to make the interpretation of the systematic transport, the systematic transport at a too low price. This can be verified through accounting. If a company transports goods at prices that fail to cover the fixed or even the variable costs, one can speak of an unlawfully low price. This is a structural behavior that is very difficult to describe in a situational way. For this reason our interpretation is that it must ⁇ be structurally transported — thus several transports — at a permissibly low price.

For the rest, we support the philosophy of this bill to make competition in the transport sector fairer, fairer and safer because that is the purpose of this bill. Road carriers remain an indispensable link in a transit country such as Belgium, both in terms of value added and in terms of employment. At the same time, road transport also causes significant external costs, which are transferred to society, to which policy makers should not be blind: road safety, road cover wear and environmental damage. Of course, a strong and competitive transport sector is also of fundamental importance for economic arteries such as in particular — colleague Ansoms — the port of Antwerp. It is the task of the legislature to formulate clear rules of play for road transport and to ensure that they are strictly observed. Within this framework, carriers should be able to develop their services flexibly and freely.

Our group would like to emphasize that it agrees with most of the content and at least with the purpose of this draft. Many improvements have been made to the law dated May 1999. The administrative handling of short-distance freight letters will be simplified and the powers of the inspectors in the Advisory Committee on Freight Transport will be expanded.

We have not approved this bill in the committee for the time being because we think it is going too far in the effort to better define the criminal liability of the persons involved in transport. Indeed, due to the known will clause in Article 37 of the original law, the participants in road transport remained always outside of legal prosecution, Mr. Ansom. It was almost impossible to prove that they had the will and intention to commit or provoke the infringement. However, the original law was explicitly intended to end the impunity of the participants in road transport. In that sense, the law of 3 May 1999 failed in its purpose. It was a law that was inapplicable and was an adjustment. This is fully supported by our group. That was necessary.

I emphasize that we are in favor of an adjustment in order to bring a better balance between the responsibilities of the contractors and shippers on the one hand and the carriers on the other. It is clear to us that each party within the logistics chain must assume its share of responsibility and be held liable for any breaches. However, we are of the opinion that due in particular to Article 12 of this bill, which is now under vote, the slinger goes too far in the opposite direction. It is now an almost objective, automatically assumed co-responsibility of each shipper. Instead of restoring the balance of responsibility, a new imbalance has been created by completely reversing the burden of proof.

Mr. Ansoms, every expeditor, every shipper in the broadest sense of the word in the port of Antwerp, is now subject to an automatically presumed responsibility. Contractors, shippers and other intermediaries who previously wrongly remained out of control are now at risk of having to assume all automatically assumed liability. Under Article 12, the carrier is required to be voluntary, while the client can already be prosecuted for a lack of caution. This is of course balanced in the design. The danger is real that the parquet will tend to systematically invoke a lack of caution and precaution because this is easier to prove than deliberate. Their

The VLD has sought to remedy this imbalance through amendments 8 and 9. Under these amendments, the carrier must provide a copy of the transport permit to the client before the transport takes place. This adjustment should enable the client to fully assume its responsibilities on the basis of the correct data and information. Without such notification, a client cannot be expected to be fully aware of the validity requirements of the transport permit in all circumstances, in particular in order to verify the validity of transport documents drawn up in another language when the transport contract was entrusted to a foreign carrier. Furthermore, and that is often a misconception, the client does not necessarily occupy a dominant dominant position in relation to the carrier, an assumption which is always implicitly used in the bill. For example, a small self-employed may have to use the services of a multinational transport company.

There is little information on the necessary exchange of information in the draft law, while the consequences of a lack of precaution are very far-reaching for the client in question. During the discussion, Mrs. Minister, you announced that this gap would be addressed by a real-time updated website which from 1 February 2003 will provide the client with all the necessary information so that he can properly verify the transport documents, so that he has at least the correct and smooth access to the information before — in the event that he does not consult that information — being indicated of malicious will or of complicity.

In order to avoid that the draft law would also target carriers who adhere to low prices due to very specific and occasional market conditions, the VLD considers that there can only be an infringement if carriers systematically and structurally offend this practice.

In this way, however, an affordable price should remain possible, within the normal context of economic freedom. Indeed, we have proposed to replace the term “transport” with “transport” in order to mitigate a more structural, systematic violation. Their

Before we can pass the vote on this bill, we would have liked to have been aware of a number of uncertainties. What does the term “shipper” legally mean? How will one determine the definition of an unlawfully low price, in particular in very situational circumstances? I can assume that an economist looks at the accounting of a transport company with financial analysts and says that the variable costs are systematically insufficiently covered, and that even the fixed costs are not fully covered. That is an unlawfully low price, but in a situational circumstance — for example, a truck that could return empty from Spain but accidentally take back a transport — it will be very difficult to determine how we can record what an unlawfully low price is. I wish I had clarification on this.

Finally, this is, of course, a law that correctly states that we must protect the Belgian transport sector from unlawful competition, or within Belgium protect the carriers against each other from unlawful competition. My question is to what extent we sustainably protect our transport sector from unlawful competition. We can, of course, start holding Belgian carriers accountable for unlawfully low prices, so that we at least protect them with respect to each other. Their

Does this law, however, also provide protection for our Belgian transport sector with respect to Polish or Ukrainian transport companies that transport goods from the port of Antwerp to Poland, Spain or Ukraine? Does this law – which is a rhetorical question, because I think the answer is negative – provide protection for goods transported, for example, from Rotterdam to Spain at equally unlawfully low prices? You can say: that is not relevant because that is the Netherlands, but the competitive power of transport from our country or Rotterdam is of course a competitive factor in determining where goods are discharged.

Finally, our group’s question is: does this law provide protection against unlawful competition at the Belgian level, but does it not weaken our transport sector in the face of foreign competition, when it is unlawful – an unlawful competition that we cannot understand legally?

A few weeks ago, the draft law on road safety was approved here. We agreed that a single draft law alone would ⁇ not solve the problem, because it is so complex.

The draft law on the transport of goods, which is presented today, in turn addresses partial aspects of road safety, namely the compliance of the traffic rules by the truck drivers, respect of driving time and rest time and the prevention of overload of the trucks.

We are talking about a very important sector of the Belgian economy. In our export and transit country, goods transport, both by road and by rail, is a crucial link. Many companies are interested in this activity. Competition is fierce. Those carriers are by definition among the main actors on our roads. This leads to a great responsibility. However, everyone knows the dilemma of the carrier: in most cases, he wants to respect the driving time and rest time, but there are always hijackers on the coast who want to flip the rules to their own in order to gain their advantage. This disloyal competition involves the risk of a downward spiral with severe consequences. Everybody talked about it. Therefore, it is important to clarify the rules of competition so that certain cowboys can no longer make the industry acidic.

De wet van 1999 was a good law, but we know that their problems were met by implementing ervan. As Mr. Mr. said. Ansoms, which is the basis of this original text, we have chosen to improve this 1999 law to remove its beneficial effects in favor of road safety. The legislator of that time introduced the notion of co-responsibility of the commissioner into the law in order to suppress the various abuses arising from the force position of the co-actors and to end this impunity. I repeat, the sector itself has requested this modification of the 1999 text in the agreements that followed the September 2000 strikes.

Thus, this article 37 of the law of 3 May 1999 did not yield its fruits. Due to the double presence of the adverb "sciemment" — "wetens in willens" — the co-actors remained out of cause as it turns out practically impossible to prove that they had the will and intention to commit or provoke the offence. No convictions have been issued so far. But here by here I also want to do three things very clearly preciseren, like also among others of colleagues Coenen in Depreter dat have done.

First, the scope of the 1999 Act is not extended. It is only about easing the burden of proof. This is important in response to several important questions raised during the discussion in the committee. It is important to note in the report that the scope is not extended to ex-works contracts. The current draft law continues to deal only with paid transport contracts and not with sales contracts.

A second important point is that it is also not the case that the contractors should fear to be automatically held accountable for an infringement by a carrier. The judge shall take into account all elements, including those which are invoked in defence. This law ne vise donc pas l'exception because it is not automatique et dès lors, le juge restera toujours et capacité de prononcer son jugement sur les circonstances. A third description of the perimeter of this bill is contained in the term "co-responsibility". The Act of 1999 did not shift responsibility from carrier to client. This law does not do that either.

I would also like to talk about the terms “shipper” and “customer”.

The term "contractor" is the legal object of Article 2, 15°. For the definition of this term, it is not superfluous to specify that it can be the sender or the recipient. It can also be a third person.

The term “shipper” is the subject of Article 2, 16°. For the definition of this term, it is of little importance whether the goods to be transported are packed or not. The loading is carried out by the client, the carrier or the carrier himself. The used vehicle shall be made available by the carrier, the client or the carrier himself. Anyone who makes a loaded trailer available to the carrier shall therefore be considered, inter alia, as a carrier. It is a historical term in our legislation. We have discussed it. However, it was important to clarify the term.

As regards the importance for the sector, the excessive pressure on the shoulders of truck drivers should be reduced. This principle should contribute to safer roads. In addition, it should improve the working conditions of drivers. It is also a protection for transport companies that respect the rules. I continue to believe that the majority of Belgian companies comply with the rules. By counteracting disloyal competition, we make the sector healthy. In this way we also encourage the industry to continue to respect traffic rules and rest periods.

As for the contractors, as with the law on road safety, of course, nothing changes for companies and contractors who do not exert pressure on drivers. It is the person who gives the order to violate the traffic rules or driving times, who can become co-responsible. However, this co-responsibility must take into account the conditions I have mentioned. In other words, for the companies that rely on the road cowboys, as well as for those who struggle with traffic rules, rest times and fair competition, this bill means a tightening in the public interest. This project of law aims to provide support to transport companies, as well as to truck drivers respecting economic and social regulations and road safety. They work in a very competitive sector, under the pressure of the economic laws of "just in time" and we must prevent this "just in time" from having too many negative effects on road safety. Co-responsibility is important because otherwise everyone shifts responsibility. It is not possible for truck drivers to be forced to violate traffic rules, overload the truck or drive for hours. When overloaded, a driver can no longer estimate the rear distance correctly and he threatens to ride on his front passengers. Overload also leads to damage to the road cover and this increases the risk of, for example, aquaplaning. In all these areas, it is important to help in the framework of this new design. Nous le savons, les poids lourds represent 2.7% of the whole parc des véhicules à moteur et ils parcourent 10.6% de la totalité des kilomètres. They are implicated in 6.4% of bodily accidents, who do however 13.9% of tues. This draft law is therefore an additional instrument in the fight against road safety. In case of violation of the traffic rules, the umbrellas will no longer be able to be raised. It is obvious that this will not even be possible anymore, even if there is protection against, for example, something that is not regular, as I have specified.

Per ⁇ we can provide some additional elements article by article, but I hope this bill can get your support.