Confusing Provisions Regarding Articulated Vehicles
Page 37
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE Road and Rail Traffic Act contains no clear indication as to whether an articulated six-wheeler is to be regarded as a single vehicle, or as a vehicle and a trailer. It is, therefore, to be hoped that the Minister will do what he can to make the point clear in the Regulations which he is about to make under the provisions of the Act.
The Act contains a remarkable number of definitions, some of which are scattered about as though they were pieces of a jig-saw puzzle. For example, Section 1, sub-section (2), states that in Part 1 of the Act the expression "goods vehicle" means a motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use for the carriage of goods, or a trailer st constructed or adapted.
That in itself appears to be reasonably clear, but Section 36, sub-section (1), which also applies only to Part 1 of the Act, provides that "unless the context otherwise requires" the expression "motor vehicle" means a mechanically propelled vehicle in. tended or adapted for use on roads, and that the expression " trailer " means a vehicle drawn by a motor vehicle. Moreover, the sub-section states that the expression "carriage of goods" includes the haulage of goods.
Original Definition Expanded.
The result is that, unless the context otherwise requires (whatever that expression may mean), the original definition of "goods vehicle" must be expanded so as to read as follows:— The expression "goods vehicle" means a mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on roads, and constructed or adapted for use for the carriage of goods, including burden of any description, and including the haulage of goods, or burden of any description, or a vehicle drawn by a mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on roads, and so constructed or adapted.
Considering an articulated sixwheeler in the light—or fog—of this definition, ought it to be said that such a vehicle is a single vehicle or a vehicle plus a trailer? It may be argued that the motive portion of the )anachine is not a mechanically propelled vehicle which is intended or adapted for use on roads, and constructed or adapted for use for the conveyance of goods, or for the haulage of goods. The argument is that the motive portion is not .intended for use on roads until it has been adapted for that purpose by the attachment of the trailer portion.
Another' Argument.
Another argument to the same end is that the motive portion is not constructed or adapted for the haulage of goods, because one of the essential features of an articulated six-wheeler—at any rate, under the Road Traffic Act—is that the trailer portion is partially superimposed upon the motive portion. This appears to mean that, to some extent, the motive portion carries the trailer portion, instead of hauling it.
The importance of it being made clear whether an articulated sixwheeler is a single vehicle or a vehicle plus a trailer lies in the fact that, under Regulation 12 of the draft Regulations, the licence fee of 30s., 20s. or 7s. 6d., according to whether the licence is in the A, 13 or C class, is payable in respect of each motor vehicle and of each trailer. Consequently, if an articulated sixwheeler is to be regarded as a vehicle plus a trailer, the fee for a licence will be .£3, 22 or 15s., according to the class of licence required.
It is submitted that the reasonable course to adopt would be to provide that an articulated six-wheeler is to be regarded as a single vehicle, for which a single licence fee is payable. If, however, more than one trailer portion be used, from time to time, with the same motive portion, separate licence fees should be payable for alternative trailer portions. This would be in accordance with the practice that will prevail in the case of a lorry, the owner of which owns more than one trailer which is used with the lorry. Although the Act itself cannot be amended except by a subsequent Act, there is no reason why the point should not be dealt with by the Minister in the new Regulations, by the addition of a further paragraph to Regulation 12.
Confusing Definitions.
Under the present system adopted by the draftsmen of Acts of Parliament, it is extremely difficult, in many cases, to refer to another Act for the purpose of interpreting the provisions of an Act, the terms of which are not free from doubt. This arises from the method of providing expressly that definitions given are given in an Act for the purpose only of that particular Act, or for the purpose of a particular Part, or even of a particular Section, of the Act in which the definition in question is contained.
It does, however, appear not to be unreasonable in the present instance to pray-in-aid, as the lawyers say, the provision contained in the Seventh Schedule to the Finance Act, 1933. In this measure it is expressly stated that where a vehicle used for drawing a trailer has the trailer attached to it by partial superimposition the vehicle and the trailer shall, for the purpose of determining the amount of duty chargeable under paragraph 5—that is, the paragraph which fixes the amount of licence duty payable in respect of a goods vehicle—be treated as if they together formed a single vehicle. The vehicle shall not• be charged with the additional duty payable in respect of a goods vehicle which draws a trailer.
That clearly expresses the view which Parliament took with regard to the licence duty payable in respect of an articulated six-wheeler. There is no reason to anticipate that Parliament would have taken any other view with regard to the payment of licence fees under the new Act if the point had been raised for their consideration.