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 
No Prosecutions• After Issue of Tickets
Page 50
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Late Changes to Road Traffic Bill Made by Government : Misgivings Allayed
FROM OUR PARLIAMENTARY CORRESPONDENT I AST-MINUTE changes in the Road Traffic Bill make it clear that once a ticket for a parking offence has been issued, nobody liable for the offence can be prosecuted during the period of option. Furthermore, no one can be convicted in the courts after a fixed penalty is paid.
During the report stage of the Bill in the House of Commons last week, Mr. David Renton, Joint Under-Secretary, Home Office, explained that previously the effect would have been to have limited the consequences of serving a ticket to the person to whom it was given.
This would have been irrespective of whether that person was liable for the offence. There should, however, be no suggestion that the option offered by the ticket was confined to the person to whom it was handed, and Mr. Renton stated that the option would not be so confined.
Mr. A. Wedgwood Benn, for the Opposition, welcomed the change. He said that it was clear that difficulties could be created if more than one man .were each partially responsible for a parking offence, as could happen.
Mr. Renton also moved, and the House accepted, an amendment putting an absolute bar on proceedings during the period of the option of paying the ticket fine. Under the previous version of the Bill, proceedings might be begun within the period of option if the person to whom the ticket was given, or who eventually received it, stated that he did not intend to pay the fixed penalty.
Reason for Proposal On the other hand, the constable or warden might be mistaken in thinking that the person to whom he gave the ticket was the person liable for the offence. Hence the change in the Bill that Mr. Renton proposed.
Mr. Benn agreed that a problem could arise if a constable or traffic warden gave a man a ticket in the belief that he was liable when he was not, and the man became angry and wrote to the justices saying that in no circumstances would he pay the penalty. Proceedings might be begun prematurely against the wrong person. The change prevented this.
Mr. Renton also fulfilled a promise he gave in committee. 14e made provision that orders made by the Home Secretary for the appointment of any but the first traffic wardens—who are to start work in London in the autumn—will first be presented to Parliament for debate.
Because of the long summer recess, there would not be time for a prior debate on the first London wardens. Mr. Benn was also grateful for this amendment. He said that the Opposition were extremely anxious that the traffic-warden system should be brought in at every stage with full understanding, co-operation, discussion and debate. He believed the amendment would help to launch the scheme successfully.
al 6 On the third reading of the Bill, Mr. John Hay, Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport. said that drivers in Mayfair and Westminster were increasingly neglecting rules concerning waiting and the use of parking meters.
"Now, chaos and confusion is almost as great in that area as it was before the parking meters were introduced. This is a problem of enforcement, and I am absolutely certain that when we get the traffic wardens on the streets and doing their job, we shall at least be within sight of clearing away many of the vehicles which cause congestion," he said.
Speedy Impression Mr. Hay also announced that the London Traffic Management Unit under Dr. 0. Charlesworth. formerly of the Road Research Laboratory, was now almost at full strength and starting work in preparation for September 1, the day when the Bill will become an Act. "I hope that we shall be able to make a speedy impression on the traffic problem in London," he added.
"The whole object is to take the central area of London and endeavour to deal with the problem there. If we can manage to lick the traffic problem in the central area of London, 1 do not think we need worry," stated Mr. Hay. "If we can beat it there, we can beat it anywhere in the United Kingdom."
Mr. Hay Said that more and different powers might be needed later. The whole difficulty with traffic problems was that one never knew the answer until something had been tried.
Mr. Robert Mellish (Lab., Bermondsey) warned that the Opposition would carefully watch the regulations about traffic wardens. The reputation of the police among the lorry drivers had never been higher, he said.
"We must not destroy that by introducing some system that may well be used by some wardens and some policemen—I do not say all—as a means of just sticking a ticket on the motorist's or lorry driver's window and saying 'That's £2 brother. If you don't like it, go to court and argue it out."' Mr. Ernest Marples, Minister of Transport, said that there was no doubt that the Bill was only the beginning of the Government's efforts to get to grips with the traffic problem. He agreed with Mr. Mellish that a "second-rate police force" could not be tolerated.
Corps of Auxiliaries
"It will not, however, be a police force, but a carps of auxiliaries with limited powers. They will not have the powers which an ordinary constable possesses, but they will come under the jurisdiction of the police force."
He agreed that the establishment of fixed penalties would not interfere with the warning practice of the police.
"We must remember, however, that the use of the ticket system is also discretionary. A warden is not bound to serve a ticket on the driver of a vehicle parked in the wrong place, but only in cases where the offence is clearly seen."
The Bill now goes to the Lords.