Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2013-01-15-Speech-2-599-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20130115.33.2-599-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Madam President, on behalf of the Committee for Transport and Tourism, I introduce this debate this evening on the issue officially of weights and dimensions but on what has become known as mega trucks or gigaliners. The Oral Question tabled today is intended to follow-up on the legal question which Parliament raised last year over the Commission’s rights to rewrite unilaterally the rules on cross-border traffic of mega trucks without involving the co-legislstors.
Personally, I do not support the extension of the use of these lorries as proposed because I believe the infrastructure in many countries cannot cope and this could lead to road safety issues, and the effect on the environment and the rail freight sector has not been assessed. What is clear however is that whether you are pro mega trucks or anti there is a strong consensus within the committee that any change to the present position should be done through the codecision process.
We cannot accept that something as important as this can be decided in an arbitrary fashion, announced at some conference on the basis that a legal boffin has had a change of mind and done a spectacular U-turn on previous advice. We were told in the past that the extension of mega trucks could not take place under the present legislation. Indeed, the Commissioner confirmed this in his response to parliamentary questions raised by honourable Members. But then, as if by magic, it was the intention of the Commission to sneak this change through in the hope that Parliament did not notice the change. Well, Madam President, Parliament did notice and what has followed since has been a farcical situation of the Commission scurrying around trying to find a way out of the mess it has found itself in.
Following months of reflection, the Commissioner decided to uphold his reinterpretation of the present legislation, even though in his letter to me he acknowledged that the current directive is not completely unambiguous. Even President Barroso in his letter to President Schulz acknowledged that a full revision of the legislation would be an opportunity to provide full legal clarity.
I ask the Commissioner this evening to agree with me that the present legislation is unclear and that in those circumstances he has a duty to end that uncertainty by putting forward for Parliament’s consideration, a full revision of this legislation which addresses the issues of cross-border mega trucks. I am told, Commissioner, that you do not intend to do that, which in my view just compounds the errors that were made last year. If it is your wish to extend cross-border mega trucks then have the courage of those convictions to bring these changes before Parliament, under codecision, for its democratic consideration.
Commissioner, we need legal clarity and that can only be achieved with the full cooperation of the co-legislators and not on a whim of some lawyer tucked away in the Commission. This whole issue has become a mess of the Commission’s making and the time has come to sort out that mess by allowing this Parliament to carry out its constitutional role as enshrined in the Treaties governing the European Union."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples