Brussels, 27/03/2012 (Agence Europe) - After receiving a tough lecture from MEPs, Siim Kallas has decided to leave the issue of authorising cross-border circulation of longer, heavier modular lorries to one side. Debates were again heated, almost emotional, over the subject of mega trucks, when the European transport commissioner presented his point of view to the parliamentary committee on transport and tourism (TRAN). Although MEPs largely stated their disagreement with the commissioner's initial intentions, the dossier remains open. Kallas, who has now said that no member states will have to accept longer trucks on its territory if it does not wish to, has not however clearly explained what the next stages will be on this matter.
Two superimposed debates. Siim Kallas faced an outcry from MEPs during their TRAN meeting on Monday 26 March. Firstly, MEPs were scandalised at the underhand way in which he planned to take action, seeing it as undemocratic and, secondly, they felt cross-border use of gigaliners could have negative repercussions on the rail sector. In the discussions, Kallas was not able to give any clear indications regarding authorisation or otherwise, simply stating that he would “think it over again” and expressing his regrets for not having informed the committee before the news had spread that the Commission was lifting the ban on cross-border usage of longer and heavier trucks.
EP wants legislative proposal. End February, MEPs had been surprised to discover through the press that the commissioner was preparing to inform member states of a reinterpretation by his legal services of the legislation on weights and measures of heavy goods vehicles (HGV). This was at a time when public consultation was underway on Directive 96/53 (albeit geared more to aerodynamic changes). After tough comments at the TRAN committee, the commissioner retracted at the last moment, invited initially to debate the matter with MEPs on Monday. The latter deplored the faux pas that the commissioner was about to make, inviting him not to hide behind what Gesine Meissner (ALDE, Germany) calls a “new assessment” but to be “brave and to present a legislative proposal on gigaliners”. Jörg Leichfried (S&D Austria), who was scandalised, put it: “Be courageous, present a legislative proposal on gigaliners, but do not bring it in through the backdoor””. MEPs sees the democratic co-decision procedure threatened. Michael Kramer (Greens/EFA, Germany) said that any substantial change in the legislation cannot simply be implemented by changing an “interpretation”. It would require an ordinary legislative procedure, involving the Parliament and the Council as co-legislators. The Commission's role, he said, is to defend the treaties not to break them.
Environmental impact? Beyond the debate on the form that the commissioner's intentions have taken, MEPs were also divided over the substance, regarding the impact that the international introduction of mega trucks would have on road safety and, especially, on the environment. While the use of longer, heavier HGVs is often justified in order to make substantial reductions in CO2 emissions from road transport, there are obvious risks that goods transport will return to the road. This would boost road transport, Said El Khadraoui (S&D, Belgium) regrets. He considers, like Eva Lichtenberger (Greens/EFA, Austria) that this flies in the face of what the authorities should be doing in order to develop a more sustainable transport system. Nonetheless, others, like Mathieu Grosch (EPP/Belgium) and Philippe de Backer (ALDE, Belgium), largely uphold the reasoning of the commissioner who wants member states to decide for themselves whether to allow such lorries to enter their territories. Peter Van Dalen (ECR, Netherlands) said this would give a chance to road transport which is stifling. He called on the commissioner to take action. Despite these encouraging views, the commission has conceded that he will not propose a directive that will allow longer modular trucks to invade the whole territory. This does not, however, clarify whether or not he will stick to the plan of reinterpreting the current legislation. (MD/transl.jl)