Commons Debate Disqualification Clause
Page 57
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
From Our Parliamentary Correspondent
WE should clear our minds of cant about the position of professional drivers faced with automatic disqualification after committing three offences within three years, said Mr. John Hay, Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, last week. Winding up a Commons debate on the Road Traffic Bill, he declared: "It seems that there is a fundamental confusion of thought, for the object of our concern is road safety, and that is a paramount consideration.
"If what we are considering was the career of an airline pilot who, as a result of misbehaving, negligence or dangerous conduct, was convicted of an offence, we would not for a moment say that he should not be disqualified from piloting an aircraft because it would mean that he would lose his livelihood. I cannot see any logical difference between that situation of an airline pilot and the situation of a professional driver of a lorry or public service vehicle on our roads.
"The fact is that we are, in both cases, dealing with dangerous or negligent conduct, and if the consequences of either of those means disqualification we should not allow the fact that he may lose his living as a result to be prayed in aid," went on Mr. Hay.
"We can go into this in detail in Committee. but I honestly believe that it would be unwise for us to make an alteration of that kind."
Disquiet about the automatic disqualification clause was voiced by many M.P.s, though in general the Bill was welcomed by both Government and Opposition speakers.
When he moved successfully that the measure should be given its second reading, Mr. Marples noted that in the United States a "third time loser" was given a rather serious sentence under the criminal law.
The object of "totting up the offences under the Bill was not to punish the driver, hut to make him think and be careful. Nobody was entitled to assume that he had a divine right to a licence. which was a privilege for having the skill to drive properly, and the patience to drive carefully and with consideration for other road users.
"The curious thing is that drivers seem not to be afraid of losing their lives, but very scared of losing their licences," commented the Minister.
He maintained that every single offence which led to disqualification had been responsible for accidents. He was aware that many would be thought of as technical and trivial, and of course they were to the man who committed them—but not to the people who got hurt. That was the difference.
"We have all got to accept some sacri: flees and some discipline. The motorists. the pedestrians, the professional drivers all of us have to sacrifice some convenience in order to save lives."
From the Opposition Front Bench, Mr. George Strauss (Vauxhall) said he had no hesitation in saying that when a professional driver committed one or more serious offences his driving licence should be taken away. But he was very doubtful about automatic disqualification.
" Although I realize that there is a case for it, I am not sure whether, as the Bill stands, it is not too comprehensive and whether the offences involving disqualification are not too wide.• Mr. Frank McLeavy (Lab., Bradford .East) said that whatever penalties might he placed on people who drove recklessly, we would not, merely by the imposition of those penalties, solve the problem of the quicker transportation of our commodities. Road congestion was due to inadequate roads and the increased number of vehicles using them. If we could get off the roads the heavy commercial loads that prevented a speedier flow of traffic we should be taking a very big step forward.
It was high time that the Federation of British Industries, the railway authorities and the Ministry got together to see whether the railways could, by common agreement, be used more fully for the transportation of our manufactured goods.
Test for "Heavy" Drivers From Mr. R. W. Elliott (Cons., Newcastle North) came the suggestion that there should be an extra test for the heavy vehicle driver. Public service vehicle drivers had to pass an advanced test, but what about the heavy road haulage vehicle drivers, he asked. Increased overhead costs in the road haulage industry had meant bigger loads, but they were still in the charge of one man.
Agreeing with him, Mr. George Darling (Lab., Hillsborough) asked for a much stricter code of repair and maintenance of heavy commercial vehicles. Licences should not be granted for commercial vehicles which did not operate from garages where repairs and maintenance could be carried out, and the Bill. should provide authority to the police to ban street parking of heavy vehicles, particularly those owned by firms which had no proper garage accommodation.
The disqualification sub-section was described as "a complete waste of
by Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies (Cons., Isle of Thanet). This was something which juries would not stomach—they would acquit and magistrates would acquit because they would not let somebody be • disqualified for six months because he had been found guilty of two trivial offences before.
Putting the point of view of the Transport and General Workers Union, Mr. R. J. Mellish (Lab., Bermondsey) said it strongly objected to and was horrified at the prospects arising from the disqualification clause, though it welcomed most of the Bill's provisions. It did not oppose a general tightening up of the law concerning dangerous driving and the imposition of more severe penalties for serious offences. But drivers of many vehicles—especially public service vehicles—were already subjected to a very special test before they could obtain a licence. They were therefore specially qualified, and it would be monstrous if the courts were not given a discretion not to apply this penalty after the third offence.
VEHICLE NOISE AND FUMES
EXTENSIVE experiments had been I—, made on a subjective assessment of motor-vehicle and aircraft noise, said Mr. Denzil Freeth, Parliamentary Secretary for Science, in the Commons last week; motor vehicles were being studied at the National Physical Laboratory. He hoped the Wilson Committee's report on noise would be available before the end of the year.
No suitable means of removing smoke from the exhausts of diesel-powered vehicles has been found by the Wren Spring Laboratory of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, reported Mr. Freeth. But the Laboratory would examine any device for this purpose that came to its notice.
The real remedy lay in correct maintenance and operation of engines, went on Mr. Freeth.
CHEMICALS LORRY EXPLOSION IF the probable cause of the recent 1 explosion of a chemicals lorry at West Bromwich can be ascertained, Mr. Butler, the Home Secretary, will consider what action might be required to prevent a recurrence.
Mr. David Renton, Minister of State at the Home Office, gave this promise in the Commons last week.
TUNNEL TOLLS
TOLLS on the Dartford-Purfleet tunnel are expected to be about £1 million a year. Stating this in the Commons last week, Mr. Marples said it was estimated that that part of the cost of the tunnel which was to be recovered from tolls should he amortized in about 20 years.
He told Mr. John Parker (Lab., Dagenham) that the estimated cost of installing the turnstiles was about £57,000, which included the cost of the toll booths and the toll collection equipment.