1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288 
Further Discussions on Meters : Mr. Molson's Promise
Page 119
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
PARKING meters and the charges to he made for their use were .further discussed by a' standing committee of the Flouse'of Commons on Thursday of last week, when the committee stage of the Road Traffic
Bill continued.. Mr. Hugh Molson, Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, undertook to sponsor an amendment to limit the Minister's powers of control over drivers leaving vehicles in parking places.
Mr. Graham Page (C., Crosby) moved an amendment to limit the Minister's powers of controlling activities at parking places. Under the relevant clause, he said, powers went farther than necessary. .
Mr. Molson replied that it was the doing of some trade or other activity at parking places that the Government had in mind, and there were circumstances in which they would want to have power to prevent people using parking places for unsuitable purposes.
He promised to move an amendment . on the, report --stage to limit the prohibition.
Mr. Strauss said that the Government had spoken 'throughout as if it were settled that the meter charge would be 6d. an hour, and perhaps Is. for the second hour. Was this a firm decision? He wondered whether a uniform charge of 6d. would meet the cost of establishing and administering the meters.
Obviously, he said,. the charge should be kept as low as possible, but meters must pa!, their way; otherWise no money would• be available to build the garages or to establish the parking places which everyone wanted.
Mr. Molson replied that it was desired to keep short-term charges low. The Government were not wedded to the figures mentioned. "Such calculations as we have been able to make suggest that in most cases the sum is likely to be reasonable and that it should, we hope, cover the cost and bring in a certain amount of revenue," he explained.
There would be difficulty in imposing a higher charge for the second hour than for the first, because of the mechanics of the meter, and it might well be that the hourly charge would be more than 6d.
The clause was approved.
During the discussion of clause 12, concerning offences relating to parking places, Mr. D. Renton (N.-L. and C., Huntingdon) asked whether there was any hope, before the parking-meter experiment started, of carrying out the findings of the Sharp Committee on the trial of summary offences.
Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth, for the Home Office, could not give a date for the introduction of appropriate legislation.
The clause was passed.
On Tuesday, the Minister of Transport said that he wished to reconsider the question of increasing penalties for speeding and allowing a driver to be disqualified after a second offence, as provided for in clause 15. He wished to find another way of carrying out the Government's intention that speed limits should be effectively enforced.
Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies (C., Isle of Thanet) successfully moved an amendment to delete the relevant provisions.
Existing penalties should continue, he stated. There had been no demand from magistrates or the police for increased fines.
Mr. G. Nabarro (C., Kidderminster) mentioned the "ridiculous position" in which heavy goods vehicles were subject to 20m.p.h. Most people knew that they rarely travelled at that speed. It was no use to impose a limit which was apparently unenforceable, and then making the offences even more serious.
Mr. Page unsuccessfully pressed for a measure to make a fine for careless or dangerous driving equal to the offender's income for a week. Such a sum should be the minimum fine, he contended. Present average fines were farcical.
He met unanimous opposition, but Mr. George Isaacs, himself a magistrate, thought that some benches were not dealing with such matters as seriously as they might.
Sir Hugh said that a minimum penalty would be objectionable. It would, he considered, make magistrates more inclined to acquit in those cases where they thought the penalty too high.