News
BackActually, EU Transport Commissioner Siim Kallas had imagined everything would be running smoothly when he entered the conference room of the Transport Committee in the European Parliament last Monday: he would inform the MEPs that the cross-border use of up to 60 tonnes heavy and up to 25.25 metre long HGVs - also called mega truck or Gigaliner - would now be possible, because it was the wish of the freight lobby. However, he did not expect the reaction of the MEPs: even many of his fellow group members strongly criticized him for the probably unprecedented approach of an EU Commissioner. In the end, the Commissioner had no choice but to beat a (hasty) retreat. Kallas, who definitely showed that he was not comfortable in his skin after the meeting in the Transport Committee, apologised and said he would rethink the matter.
The Brussels offices of AK and ÖGB reacted quickly to the ambush-style announcement of Commissioner Kallas concerning the mega trucks and hosted a panel discussion on the day after the debate in the Transport Committee of the European Parliament - see also the event report. This event too mainly focussed on the Commissioner’s approach and the criticism thereof. However, what made the MEPs and many transport organisations as well as non-governmental organisations so angry?
A discussion, to admit apart from 40-tonne HGVs also 60-tonne HGVs of up to 25.25 metres has been going on for years. This would require a revision of the relevant Directive. The European Commission already organised consultations, which gave the same say to opponents and supporters; apart from this it hosted conferences, which were open to all interested parties. The result of these discussions was clear: Gigaliners are rejected by a clear majority, and with good reason:
• The road transport infrastructure in many cases had been designed for vehicles of up to 40 tonnes. An adjustment of public roads, for example in Austria would require investments of more than EUR 5 billion.
• Such big and heavy vehicles would be an additional risk for road safety.
• Mega trucks would shift freight from rail to road. Some critics even go as far as to say that the introduction of these HGVs would result in rail transport being caught in a downward spiral, which would signal the end of freight transport by rail. Gigaliners would be in a position to also transport goods, which were so bulky and/or heavy that currently they can only be transported by rail. Once Gigaliners have been introduced one can also expect a further rise in traffic volume on roads.
• In the opinion of many representatives of civil society, even the proposal to introduce the mega trucks only in Member States, would pose a great risk. This would put the rejecting Member States under pressure to follow suit, as otherwise their hauliers and the entire logistics sector would suffer competitive disadvantages.
• Last but not least, the pressure on employees in the transport sector would increase: well qualified and organised railway staff would be replaced by inadequately trained HGV drivers, who would also only be paid dumping wages, worry the trade union representatives. Apart from that, it had also to be pointed out that unfortunately HGV drivers, because of the pressure they have to deal with, would time and again not observe their rest periods and therefore be on the road in an overtired state. This would pose a danger to other road users, which would not exactly get smaller once Gigaliners were permitted.
• The main arguments of the supporters were logistic advantages because it would be possible to transport larger quantities of goods and one could achieve cost savings of up to 19 percent.
EU Transport Commissioner Kallas fulfils wishes of freight lobby
It is probably the case that EU Transport Commissioner Kallas was particularly impressed by the arguments brought by the supporters. Displaying a lot of naivety, he reported in the Committee that he had received a letter by the International Road Union (IRU), an EU freight lobby organisation, which had asked whether cross-border transport with Gigaliners was allowed. He had then asked the Commission's Legal Service for information and was told that this had not been expressly forbidden in the current Directive. He was therefore in favour of enabling the cross-border use of mega trucks between Member States that permitted this. Naturally, the respective Member States had to grant special permits.
MEPs give Kallas a good ticking off
Kallas was visibly not prepared for what followed the debate with the MEPs. Even supporters of the Gigaliners were outraged by the idea that instead of a planned revision of the relevant Directive, the decision would now be taken without the involvement of the Council and the European Parliament - respectively over their heads - that the cross-border use of Gigaliners should be allowed from overnight.
The supporters of the Commission’s opinion came mainly from the European People’s Party. Mathieu Grosch (Belgium) and Dieter Koch (Germany) were in favour of letting the Member States - as described by Kallas - decide for themselves whether they permit Mega trucks. Koch even commented that the Directive had been wrongly interpreted in the past; now it would be interpreted correctly. This was in stark contrast to MEPs Georges Bach (Luxembourg), Hubert Pirker (Austria) and Dominique Riquet (France), who criticised the Commission for its approach and demanded normal legislative proceedings to deal with this issue.
Clearly in favour was also Peter van Dalen (Netherlands) of the European Conservatives, who congratulated the hauliers on their victory. It was in any case just a matter of “Much Ado About Nothing”. Apart from that, it would concern short distance transports.
The contributions from the Liberals were made by EU representatives Gesine Meissner (Germany) and Philippe De Backer (Netherlands). Meissner criticised Kallas’ approach. The Commission had already said at an earlier stage that a cross-border application of the Directive was not planned and now, suddenly there was a new legal interpretation. However, basically she thinks that experiences with Gigaliner projects so far have been positive. In contrast, her colleague De Backer finds no fault with the new interpretation of the Commission.
The representatives of the Socialists & Democrats united in their disapproval of permitting mega trucks. Said El Khadraoui (Belgium) demanded that the Commission should submit a legal proposal if it wanted Gigaliners; it was not acceptable to suddenly reinterpret the existing Directive. He was supported by his colleagues, the MEPs Ismail Ertug (Germany), Olga Sehnalova (Czechia) and Jörg Leichtfried (Austria). Leichtfried criticised that Kallas as recently as on 17 February 2012 had written to Federal Minister Doris Bures, that he would support a shift of transport from road to rail. However, by admitting mega trucks Kallas would achieve the direct opposite. Apart from that, he would lumber Austria with infrastructure costs of EUR 5.4 billion. As recently as 2010, Kallas had noticed that cross-border attempts would infringe against the Directive; something he had repeated on 2 other occasions. Suddenly the International Road Union appeared on the scene and everything had changed, said Leichtfried. Kallas’ conduct, also with regard to the separation of powers, was unacceptable.
MEP Michael Cramer spoke on behalf of the Greens. Mega trucks would shift 35 % of the single wagon transport from rail to road. In the past, Kallas had claimed that the Commission would take legal action should Gigaliners be used across borders. It was also a scandal to establish even before the end of the consultation that Gigaliners would come after all. Even the Legal Service of the German Bundestag had said that the cross-border use of Gigaliners would be an infringement against the Directive.
Leichtfried: democracy is difficult, but a fundamental principle that Kallas had to respect
After the thorough ticking off by the MEPs, EU Transport Commissioner Kallas, who was clearly not comfortable in his skin, replied to the reproaches of the MEPs. He only wanted to permit mega trucks between Member States, which were in favour of these vehicles; his intention had not been to introduce them throughout the EU. He did not want to start new legislative proceedings as this was difficult. Leichtfried replied to this statement by Kallas: Yes, such legislative proceedings were difficult, but democracy was difficult; however, it would represent a fundamental principle, which had to be respected also by the EU Transport Commissioner. At the end of the discussion Kallas apologised to the Committee and said he would rethink further proceedings.
Kallas assistant twitters: the cross-border Gigaliners are coming!
It never rains but it pours: an assistant of Kallas twittered during the debate in the Transport Committee that the cross-border Gigaliners were now on their way. Such a proverbial disaster has not happened to an EU Commissioner in the European Parliament for many years. Whether this probably almost unique faux pas by an EU Commissioner will have consequences remains to be seen.
A discussion, to admit apart from 40-tonne HGVs also 60-tonne HGVs of up to 25.25 metres has been going on for years. This would require a revision of the relevant Directive. The European Commission already organised consultations, which gave the same say to opponents and supporters; apart from this it hosted conferences, which were open to all interested parties. The result of these discussions was clear: Gigaliners are rejected by a clear majority, and with good reason:
• The road transport infrastructure in many cases had been designed for vehicles of up to 40 tonnes. An adjustment of public roads, for example in Austria would require investments of more than EUR 5 billion.
• Such big and heavy vehicles would be an additional risk for road safety.
• Mega trucks would shift freight from rail to road. Some critics even go as far as to say that the introduction of these HGVs would result in rail transport being caught in a downward spiral, which would signal the end of freight transport by rail. Gigaliners would be in a position to also transport goods, which were so bulky and/or heavy that currently they can only be transported by rail. Once Gigaliners have been introduced one can also expect a further rise in traffic volume on roads.
• In the opinion of many representatives of civil society, even the proposal to introduce the mega trucks only in Member States, would pose a great risk. This would put the rejecting Member States under pressure to follow suit, as otherwise their hauliers and the entire logistics sector would suffer competitive disadvantages.
• Last but not least, the pressure on employees in the transport sector would increase: well qualified and organised railway staff would be replaced by inadequately trained HGV drivers, who would also only be paid dumping wages, worry the trade union representatives. Apart from that, it had also to be pointed out that unfortunately HGV drivers, because of the pressure they have to deal with, would time and again not observe their rest periods and therefore be on the road in an overtired state. This would pose a danger to other road users, which would not exactly get smaller once Gigaliners were permitted.
• The main arguments of the supporters were logistic advantages because it would be possible to transport larger quantities of goods and one could achieve cost savings of up to 19 percent.
EU Transport Commissioner Kallas fulfils wishes of freight lobby
It is probably the case that EU Transport Commissioner Kallas was particularly impressed by the arguments brought by the supporters. Displaying a lot of naivety, he reported in the Committee that he had received a letter by the International Road Union (IRU), an EU freight lobby organisation, which had asked whether cross-border transport with Gigaliners was allowed. He had then asked the Commission's Legal Service for information and was told that this had not been expressly forbidden in the current Directive. He was therefore in favour of enabling the cross-border use of mega trucks between Member States that permitted this. Naturally, the respective Member States had to grant special permits.
MEPs give Kallas a good ticking off
Kallas was visibly not prepared for what followed the debate with the MEPs. Even supporters of the Gigaliners were outraged by the idea that instead of a planned revision of the relevant Directive, the decision would now be taken without the involvement of the Council and the European Parliament - respectively over their heads - that the cross-border use of Gigaliners should be allowed from overnight.
The supporters of the Commission’s opinion came mainly from the European People’s Party. Mathieu Grosch (Belgium) and Dieter Koch (Germany) were in favour of letting the Member States - as described by Kallas - decide for themselves whether they permit Mega trucks. Koch even commented that the Directive had been wrongly interpreted in the past; now it would be interpreted correctly. This was in stark contrast to MEPs Georges Bach (Luxembourg), Hubert Pirker (Austria) and Dominique Riquet (France), who criticised the Commission for its approach and demanded normal legislative proceedings to deal with this issue.
Clearly in favour was also Peter van Dalen (Netherlands) of the European Conservatives, who congratulated the hauliers on their victory. It was in any case just a matter of “Much Ado About Nothing”. Apart from that, it would concern short distance transports.
The contributions from the Liberals were made by EU representatives Gesine Meissner (Germany) and Philippe De Backer (Netherlands). Meissner criticised Kallas’ approach. The Commission had already said at an earlier stage that a cross-border application of the Directive was not planned and now, suddenly there was a new legal interpretation. However, basically she thinks that experiences with Gigaliner projects so far have been positive. In contrast, her colleague De Backer finds no fault with the new interpretation of the Commission.
The representatives of the Socialists & Democrats united in their disapproval of permitting mega trucks. Said El Khadraoui (Belgium) demanded that the Commission should submit a legal proposal if it wanted Gigaliners; it was not acceptable to suddenly reinterpret the existing Directive. He was supported by his colleagues, the MEPs Ismail Ertug (Germany), Olga Sehnalova (Czechia) and Jörg Leichtfried (Austria). Leichtfried criticised that Kallas as recently as on 17 February 2012 had written to Federal Minister Doris Bures, that he would support a shift of transport from road to rail. However, by admitting mega trucks Kallas would achieve the direct opposite. Apart from that, he would lumber Austria with infrastructure costs of EUR 5.4 billion. As recently as 2010, Kallas had noticed that cross-border attempts would infringe against the Directive; something he had repeated on 2 other occasions. Suddenly the International Road Union appeared on the scene and everything had changed, said Leichtfried. Kallas’ conduct, also with regard to the separation of powers, was unacceptable.
MEP Michael Cramer spoke on behalf of the Greens. Mega trucks would shift 35 % of the single wagon transport from rail to road. In the past, Kallas had claimed that the Commission would take legal action should Gigaliners be used across borders. It was also a scandal to establish even before the end of the consultation that Gigaliners would come after all. Even the Legal Service of the German Bundestag had said that the cross-border use of Gigaliners would be an infringement against the Directive.
Leichtfried: democracy is difficult, but a fundamental principle that Kallas had to respect
After the thorough ticking off by the MEPs, EU Transport Commissioner Kallas, who was clearly not comfortable in his skin, replied to the reproaches of the MEPs. He only wanted to permit mega trucks between Member States, which were in favour of these vehicles; his intention had not been to introduce them throughout the EU. He did not want to start new legislative proceedings as this was difficult. Leichtfried replied to this statement by Kallas: Yes, such legislative proceedings were difficult, but democracy was difficult; however, it would represent a fundamental principle, which had to be respected also by the EU Transport Commissioner. At the end of the discussion Kallas apologised to the Committee and said he would rethink further proceedings.
Kallas assistant twitters: the cross-border Gigaliners are coming!
It never rains but it pours: an assistant of Kallas twittered during the debate in the Transport Committee that the cross-border Gigaliners were now on their way. Such a proverbial disaster has not happened to an EU Commissioner in the European Parliament for many years. Whether this probably almost unique faux pas by an EU Commissioner will have consequences remains to be seen.