Proceeding contribution from Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Commons on Monday, 6 November 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Road Safety Bill (HL).
Road Safety Bill [Lords]
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether I agree, and, yes, I do. That seems an entirely sensible approach. I cannot for one second think that some lorry manufacturer, for such an infinitesimally small amount of the overall cost of a new heavy goods vehicle, would take action against the Government. I do not even think that the Minister believes that. However, if a manufacturer did take action, what would be the commercial cost to that lorry company in terms of lost business and its standing in the industry and the wider community? The hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) said that the Government’s position was moving and that it was glacial progress. I fear that he is absolutely right. If this is glacial progress, perhaps for once I could see global warming as a positive process instead of a negative one. But, my goodness, if we think that the Government’s progress on this matter is glacial, I have to say that they would be a model of alacrity compared with the EU Commission when it comes to taking infraction proceedings. I cannot for a second believe that we would see anything that would bring us before the European Court of Justice this side of 2010. It would be some substantial time later. If the EU Commission is going to take the measure in any event, why would it take infraction proceedings against us? Tonight the Minister will have to answer the question that was posed to him by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew): what is the UK position in relation to dealings with the Commission on this matter? Can the Minister assure the House that the Government are not encouraging the EU Commission—or seeking to bring pressure to bear on it—to bring infraction proceedings against Italy? That would be a better mark of the Government’s good faith in relation to this issue. The Minister said that we risk losing the Bill for this issue. I do not want the Bill to be lost and I do not believe that the Minister does, but I cannot believe for one second that he is going to see the Bill lost because of an amendment in relation to something that we are eventually going to do anyway. That is sheer brinksmanship and frankly it is unworthy of the Minister and the manner in which he has conducted proceedings on the Bill so far.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 451 c652
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Accidents Cameras EU law Fines Labelling Large goods vehicles Income International law Motor vehicles Roads Safety Safety measures Speed limits
- Legislation
- Road Safety Bill (HL) 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2026-05-13 12:04:08 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_358328
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_358328
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_358328