Signposts for All Unloading Limits ?

6th May 1960, Page 72

6th May 1960

Page 72

Page 72, 6th May 1960 — Signposts for All Unloading Limits ?

Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

111.P.s Press for Amendment of Ticket System to Benefit Lorry Drivers

BY OUR PARLIAMENTARY CORRESPONDENT

A N attempt to get local authorities to signpost all areas where commercial E ". drivers may be open to prosecution for parking or unloading was made in the House of Commons when the committee stage of the Road Traffic and Roads Improvement Bill opened last week.

Mr. Nigel Fisher (Cons., Surbiton) moved an amendment to ensure that the ticket system was used only where vehicles were parked contrary to directions given by a traffic sign. He said the purpose of the amendment was to ensure that the system was not• used in cases of what he termed technical obstruction.

Where there was a "no parking" sign, there could be no argument or reason why a driver should not receive a ticket. Mr. Robert Mellish, one of the Opposition's transport spokesmen, said that there was great merit in the amendment. It would bring a sense of responsibility upon the Minister to ensure that signs were improved.

wI am concerned about the ticket system and the power of a constable and of a traffic warden to deal, with vehicles when there is no sign to warn people,he said.

" A lorry driver from, say, Bristol, might legitimately unload his goods at a shop at which his employer has told him to deliver them.' He arrives, perhaps, in the High Street. He cannot go round to the back of. the premises because no facilities are available.

"There is no sign to forbid parking. The driver starts to' unload his goods. We all know what happens. A policeman will say to him: I warn you that you can stay here only two or three minutes. Then you had better. go away, otherwise obstruction Will be created It was not the fault of the man who was unloading his goods legitimately that there were no other facilities for unloading. As a result of the Bill, he would find a ticket on his windscreen.

It might be said that such a driver could always go to court, but he would not stand much chance there. Obviously he would have been guilty of the crime of being in a street and unloading his legitimate load.

It was as much the fault of the employer for sending him, continued Mr. Mellish. It might be that the employer should not send him at that time of day.

Mr. John Hay, Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, intervened to say: "Exactly."

Mr. Mellish: "We do not propose a law that there should be no delivery of goods until after 6 p.m. If the Government have that in mind, let them have the courage to say it, but they had better take the trade unions into account."

He added that the clause dealt with what he regarded as an important section of the motoring community—the lorry driver who was doing his daily work, and doing it legitimately. It was not his B30 fault that there were not facilities for better unloading.

Mr. David Renton, Joint Under Secretary of State at the Home Office, rejected the amendment. He said it was easy to distinguish between offences relating to stationary and those to moving traffic, but it was not so easy to do what M.P.s were now asking, namely, to distinguish between offences relating to one kind of stationary traffic and those to another kind of stationary traffic.

After further debate, the amendment was withdrawn.

The Government did accept a drafting amendment by Mr. Fisher to make it absolutely clear that the ticket system should be used only in respect of stationary vehicles. Mr. Renton said that the system would be excluded for .offences of driving without lights or reflectors, but the offence of leaving a stationary vehicle on the road without a light or a reflector in a place where lights or reflectors were needed would remain an offence to which the ticket system could apply.

Mr. Ernest Marples, Minister of Transport, appealed to Members to help the Government to get the Bill through by the end of July or the beginning of August, so that it could come into force on September 1. To that end be pro posed that the committee should sit three times a week, twice on Tuesdays and once on Thursday morning, Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn, for the Opposition, said he wanted to help the Minister to get the Bill through. But he objected to three sittings a week to begin with.

Mr. Marples agreed to meet the Opposition for further discussions, and pending these withdrew his proposal for three meetings a week.

-The period for payment of ticket fines was lengthened from 14 to 21 days on Tuesday. The Government aceepted an amendment to this effect moved by Mr. W. T. Wells (Lab., Walsall North), who urged the change for the sake of lorry drivers and others who had to be away from home for a long period.

Longer to Pay

Mr, Renton accemed this, saying that in fixing the period the Government had to strike a balance between giving too short -and too long a time. Re gave an assurance that only the minimum records would be kept by court officials of any ticket fines paid. The vehicle owner's or driver's name would not be recorded; only the number of the vehicle in respect of which the fine was paid.

Mr. Berm said that the whole ticket system was going to affect lorry drivers: therefore they were bound to consider the special powers and the calibre of the traffic wardens. It was important that such powers as were to be given to the wardens should be given to the right sort of people.

" This is a whole new departure in the mechanization of sin and the automation of absolution," he said. He believed the Bill was only the first step to special traffic courts, and that the whole structure being set up, although intended to be permanent, would in fact be only temporary. The whole law would have to be rewritten in due course into a wider administration of traffic law,