Road Transport Topics in Parliament
Page 47
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Mr. Burgin, the New Minister of Transport, Defends New Regulations Against Motion for a Prayer for Annulment BY OUR SPECIAL PARLIAMENTARY CORRESPONDENT
VEHICLE EXAMINATION WITHOUT OWNER'S CONSENT.
HE first occasion on which Mr. I Burgin, as Minister of Transport, faced the House of Commons in debate was on Thursday, last week, when he had to defend the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations, 1937, against a motion for a prayer for annulment.
So many supporters of the Government favoured the prayer that, if the question had gone to a division, the Government would have only narrowly escaped defeat. As it was, the Minister promised to submit later an amending regulation modifying the proposed Regulation 95.
The last-named empowers any police constable in uniform, or any person appointed by the Ministry of Transport as a certifying officer or public service vehicle examiner, under the Road Traffic Act, 1930, or as an examiner under the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, " to test and inspect either on a road or, subject to the consent of the owner of the premises, on any premises where the vehicle is, any brakes, silencers, or steering gear fitted to a motor vehicle or trailer."
DANGER OF SERIOUS DAMAGE.
IN moving the prayer, Colonel Sande'man Alien stated that the main grievance was that only the consent of the owner of the premises was called for.
• He presumed that this was to avoid trouble over the law of trespass.
Were not, he asked, the rights of the owner of the vehicle worthy of protection? Moreover, how could the brakes and steering gear he tested in the garage? Even the silencer could properly be tested only on the road.
...,:Owners sometimes emptied in winter the radiators when leaving vehicles in garages, Without the owner's knowledge a police officer or inspector could start the engine to see whether the silencer was satisfactory. The engine might be seriously harmed if it were run without water. It might be that the oil wanted renewing, in which case more severe damage might ensue.
If the vehicle were taken on the road, who would take responsibility for its contents? Many owners had insurance policies that precluded any other than an authorized person from driving. If there were an accident, while the test was being carried out without the owner's knowledge, who would pay for the damage? Furthermore, there might be doubt about the ownership of the premises. Was it to the lessee or the actual owner that application to inspect somebody else's vehicle should be made? He was now asking that the owner of the vehicle should he notified so that he or his agent could be present when the inspection took place. These Regulations were mainly to ensure the safety of the public, so far as possible, but -what was the connection between.. the examination of silencers and public safety?
OWNER MERELY TO BE NOTIFIED?
N/TR. BURGIN asked whether, if the liflowner were notified, much of the Member's complaint . would fall, to which Colonel Sanderrian Allen said the main burden of his complaint would fall, but he wanted to make absolutely certain that this provision appeared in the Regulations and not merely as an instruction to chief constables,
In seconding the motion, Mr. R. C. Morrison pointed to the danger of motorists being ruled by Regulations. He believed that there were now 2,000 separate offences which drivers could commit, This new set of Regulations would add considerably to the number.
IMPRACTICABLE TO OBTAIN OWNER'S CONSENT.
.AFTER FTER further discussion, in which
several other points were raised, Mr. Burgin said that in conjunction with the home Secretary he proposed to keep a close watch on the working in practice of these Regulations. His attention would not be limited to any specific Regulation to which attention had been drawn.
For instance, with regard to the -fitting of a speedometer showing when a speed limit was reached, he did not believe this was the cause of any substantial grievance at all.
With regard to the cut-out question, mentioned by Mr. Strauss, he had been too long at the Board of Trade to desire to put a parochial Regulation in force which handicapped our manufacturers in the markets of the world. It would be ridiculous to forbid the inclusion on chassis of an appliance wanted abroad because it was an offence to use it in this country.
The whole House was interested in seeing that efficiency of brakes was a subject to which motorists and inspectors paid due, attention.
Under SectiOn 30. of the 1930 Act the.Minister had power to make Regulations on the 'matter they were now discussing and in the very words of
the Regulation now before them. The inference was that the prior consent of the owner of the vehicle was found to be impracticable.
Colonel Sandeman Allen remarked that " giving due notice •to the owner " was really all that they required.
MINISTER DEFINES OWNER.
OWNER, said Mr. Burgin, or owner's representative, included the occupier or the occupier's representative. Wherever practicable, in case of inspection by officers of the Ministry, notice would be given to the owner of the vehicle with a view to hitia,,or his representative being present..
Chief officers of police had already been advised not to undertake such examination (in garages) save in the most exceptional circumstances, without notifying the owner of the vehicle as well as the owner of the pre mises. .
In conjunction with the Home Secretary, he would closely watch the working of the Regulations, in order to deal with practical difficulties as they arose, and, if necessary, have them amended.
Reverting to the matter of brakes, Captain Strickland said that, according to the figures published for 1933, the fatal accidents that resulted from defective brakes were only half per cent. of the total, and to diminish that figure he proposed to penalize every decent driver and owner of a motor vehicle throughout the whole country, PROMISE TO AMEND REGULATIONS.
'THE Minister later said that he would
like an opportunity to amend, the Regulations in consultation with other Departments of State. The amendment would include the point about notification to the owner of the vehicle, with an opportunity, wherever practicable, for the owner or his representative to be present. He undertook, if the Regulations were passed now, to amend No. 95 immediately.
If the whole of the Regulations were withdrawn, confusion would be caused because they were now in force. The motion to annul the Regulations was then withdrawn.
PREVENTION OF BUILDING ON BY-PASS ROADS.
AREQUEST was made by Commander Locker-Lampson for an assurance that railway stations or other buildings where crowds collected should not be erected in places where they caused congestion op by-pass and other roads, built to relieve congestion in and out of great cities: M. Burgin said he would do all in his power to prevent this type of development.