THE MINISTER'S DUMMY
Page 54
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Road Traffic and Roads Improvement Act Leaves Much to be Done by Subsequent Regulations By Our Legal Adviser
THE new Road Traffic and -Roads Improvement Act comes into force, with the exception of two complete sections and the major part of another one, on September I. The provisions that do not come into effect on that date will do so later by Order made by the Minister of Transport. So far as the general public are concerned, the Act itself is in many respects no more than an unclothed dummy, as its provisions largely depend upon the framing of further regulations to carry out in detail the principles they contain.
For the average vehicle user, probably the most revolutionary provisions, and those likely to make the biggest personal impact, are contained in Section 1. It authorizes " fines on the spot." Although this system—or a variation of it—has long been in force in other countries, it has always seemed all Lombard Street to a china orange that the British. with their reverence for individual rights and conservatism, would reject such a legal revolution. Now that this measure has been introduced, however, if we examine it carefully, it is clear that it is hedged around with so many excellent and proper safeguards that it is difficult to envisage any injustice or real cause for complaint.
As a procedure it does not take the place of a proper summons and court hearing unless the person accused of an offence wishes it to do so. If a constable finds a person whom he believes to be committing an offence or to have done so, or if he finds a vehicle in respect of which he has a similar belief, he may issue a notice to the person concerned or, if the vehicle is unattended, he may affix the notice to the windscreen.
The notice, which must be on a properly prescribed form, must contain particulars of the alleged offence and must offer the option of discharging any fine which could be inflicted on a conviction for such an offence by the payment of a fixed-sum penalty.
It must also give details of how payment is to be made. It should particularly be noticed that there is no question of money changing hands on the spot—payment is to be made through the clerk of a named magistrates' court.
Right to a Trial If the driver-accepts this option, he will hear no more of the offence, and if he is subsequently summoned in respect of it
by some official mistake, his certificate of receipt is a complete answer. If he wants to fight the case, he can ignore the notice and wait for a summons. The fixed penalty involved is to be either £2 or half the maximum fine payable on a first conviction for that offence, whichever is the less.
The only offences which may be dealt with in this fashion are: (I) Parking in darkness without lights or reflectors; (2) obstruction, waiting or loading or unloading in contravention of any regulations and (3) the non-payment of a street parking charge. The more serious driving offences are excluded. Moreover, the procedure is not envisaged as being applicable throughout the country. • It is to extend only to such areas as may he subsequently designated. No doubt, the practice will be gradually introduced after initial experiment in selected areas. One can assume probably, however, that the Metropolitan Area is clearly intended to be covered sooner or later.
What of the remaining 24 sections and schedules? Broadly speaking, the whole purpose of the rest of the Act is to deal with the parking problem or to give the Minister of Transport a free hand to make detailed orders and regulations in relation to it. Section 2 is, perhaps, not quite within 'that pattern, but more of a piece with Section I. one clear purpose of which. is to relieve the police from much wasted time attending magistrates' courts.
By Section 2, police authorities are empowered to employ uniformed traffic wardens to take over and discharge certain duties of control and regulation of traffic.
So far as the rest of the Act is concerned, with its obvious preoccupation with the parking problem, I can do little at this stage, except to draw attention to those provisions likely to affect operators.
The Minister is given wider powers under Sections 3 and 4 in relation to the designation of parking places than he previously possessed under the Road Traffic Act, 1960. In particular, his power to designate such places may now be exercised for a period of five years without previous reference to the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee. The validity of any such Order may be challenged by any person interested—as before—but this right is limited to a period of six weeks from the date of the making of the Order, during which he may apply to the High Court.
Wide Powers for Minister It is, perhaps, too much to say that the Minister has been given carte blanche in making regulations in the London area because Parliament has overall control, yet he has certainly been given the widest possible powers consonant with such control. For the next five years his power under Section 34 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, to make regulations for controlling or regulating traffic in London, may be exercised without reference to the Traffic Advisory Committee. Moreover, no appeal will lie to the Minister from the Traffic Commissioner in the case of a decision on a road service licence for a route wholly or partly within the Metropolitan Traffic Area, or a route within the London Special Area provided by the British Transport Cornmission or an Executive, if the Commissioner certifies that his decision was necessary to conform With regulations made under Section 34.
One far-reaching amendment of the 1960 Act which has been introduced at this late stage, and cannot but cause the gravest concern to all goods operators, is contained in Section. 12. By that section, the proviso contained' in Section 26 of the 1960 Act, which has restricted bans on loading or unloading to six hours in all in any consecutive period of 24 hours, is now abolished. The result is to make possible the total banning of loading and unloading for such periods and in such places as may be considered desirable upon the mere ipso disit of whoever draws up the Order. The implications of this are too obvious to need emphasis. It seems to me, however, that—putting it at its lowest —this was not considered necessary when the Bill was drafted, and the removal of what was, at its best, a poor protection in terms of total loading or unloading hours, has been a complete afterthought, to which insufficient attention has been paid.