Lorry Bill unladen weight meaningless Lords told
Page 25
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
from our Parliamentary correspondent
• An attempt to increase the weight of lorries affected by Heavy Commercial Vehicles (Control and Regulations) Bill failed in the Lords this week in the face of opposition from both the sponsor of the measure and the Government.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth wanted to write into the Bill an amendment which substituted 16 tons laden weight for 3 tons unladen weight. This, he said, was proposed during the committee stage of the Bill in the Commons and had been withdrawn on the understanding that the promoters and the Government would give further thought to the matter. Unhappily no compromise agreement had been arrived at.
Lord Lucas claimed that unladen weight was meaningless — it had no other meaning than the weight at which a vehicle was offered at the weighbridge for licensing purposes.
He pointed out that 3 tons unladen weight once meant vehicles approaching 5 to 6 tons gross but today vehicles could be produced which would go 7-1tons on a 3-ton unladen basis.
Lord Bethell, who is promoting the Bill in the Lords, said local authorities would not be keen to ban vehicles with an unladen weight between 3 and 5 tons from city centres where there were shops or supermarkets. If a Draconian local authority were to impose wholesale prohibitions there would be chaos.
He said that as a result of progress towards a common European policy we might eventually go over to a laden weight definition but at the moment a very confused situation would result if Lord Lucas's suggestion were to be adopted.
For the Government Lord Mowbray and Stourton agreed with Lord Bethell,
adding that if as a result of integration with EEC countries we went over to gross weight then legislation should cover the whole board; a small Bill of this type would not suffice.
Lord Lucas withdrew his amendment as did Viscount Davidson who wanted to allow lorries to park on the verge beside a road in country areas. Lord Bethell promised to consider this particular suggestion during the next stage of the Bill.
Before the measure completed the committee stage two amendments dealing with
overloaded vehicles — both put forward by Lord Bethell — were accepted. One says that a policeman who stops a heavy commercial vehicle because it is thought to be overloaded must give a written instead of a verbal instruction to move it to a point where unloading might take place. At the same time the definition of a driver is "the person in charge of the vehicle".
As a result of the other amendment it will be an offence for the driver of a overloaded vehicle to refuse to move it when instructed to do so by an enforcement officer.