Trial Dictatorship
Page 21
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
SO long as the Road Traffic and Roads Improvement Bill, which had its second reading in the House of Commons on Monday, is accepted by everyone as an experimental measure, it deserves qualified approval. It attempts to grapple with the problem of keeping traffic moving in congested streets. The aim is admirable, but if the machinery proves to be a failure, it must quickly be abandoned. The law is normally ponderous in action and even more difficult to change, but there must be a clear recognition that the new Bill has been born of an emergency and its provisions will be valid only while those conditions exist.
It gives the Minister of Transport the powers almost of a dictator over traffic in London and enables him to by-pass the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee in some matters. To its credit, it sweeps away certain obstacles to urgent road improvements and gives the Minister wide authority to deal with parking on and off the street. He is enabled to make grants towards the provision and maintenance of off-street parking places in the London area, so long as the sums do not exceed the net revenue from the parking places that he establishes.
All commercial-vehicle operators will welcome the removal of cars parked unreasonably in public thoroughfares. They have amply demonstrated their willingness to co-operate with authority in the smooth working of the "Pink Zone " arrangements in London. Having done so, they are entitled to expect that they will be allowed proper facilities to collect and deliver goods and passengers at times reasonably convenient to all concerned. There are limits to the degree of off-peak operation in which hauliers and C-licensees can economically engage, especially when a long journey is involved.
Doubts on Tickets These operators may well have some misgivings about the ticket system of fines for certain offences, including loading and unloading a vehicle in a road. A constable may give an " offender " the option of paying, without prosecution, a fixed penalty of £2, or half the maximum amount of fine to which a person is liable on summary conviction on a first offence, whichever is less. There is no guarantee that a magistrate, knowing that a defendant has elected to go for trial, will not impose a heavier penalty because the person has had the temerity to question the equity of the prosecution and has imposed a load on the administrative machine which the ticket system is intended to avoid.
There is also the possibility that, being relieved of the necessity of attending court, perhaps in their off-duty hours, police officers may be prodigal in distributing tickets. The goods-vehicle driver, acting under orders to collect and deliver at certain premises, is particularly vulnerable and unless the police use their new powers with discretion his position could be made untenable. Any abuse of the ticket system would widen the gulf between the public and the police, and the law would break down. It is for Parliament to decide whether that risk can be taken.
Mr. Ernest Marples, Minister of Transport, is certainly to be admired for taking early and decisive action to deal with an increasingly difficult situation. His intentions are undoubtedly of the best, although performance and expectation are not always identical. It must, however, always be recognized that the Bill is merely a stop-gap pending the reconstruction of towns, and particularly London, to accommodate the rising volume of traffic. Legislation must not be used as an excuse to delay or abandon costly but essential road works.