§ Second Schedule, page 30, line 47, at end insert—
|In subsection (4), the following shall be inserted after paragraph (c) and|
|(d) of vehicles or trailers carrying loads of exceptional dimensions'.")|
§ LORD CHESHAM
My Lords, this is a slightly more important Amendment, because its purpose is to enable the Minister to make orders under subsection (4) of Section 64 of the 1960 Act to authorise the carriage by ordinary commercial vehicles—that is, those that comply with the Construction and Use Regulations—of loads which exceed dimensions allowed by Regulations made under Section 64. The point of this 233 is that we want to control, but not to prohibit, the movement of certain indivisible, wide loads on ordinary vehicles which comply with the Construction and Use Regulations. The point about it is this: if you put a large, indivisible load on an ordinary vehicle at the moment, it can move freely on the roads subject to notifying the police, and only if you put it on a specially-constructed vehicle does it have to be authorised by an order made by the Minister. That is the point, and we want to be able to control the large, indivisible loads when they avoid the present control, exercised by the Minister, by being put on ordinary vehicles. That is what this Amendment is for. We want to have control, whether it is on a special vehicle or on an ordinary one. I beg to move.
§ Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Chesham.)
§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, does it mean that as a result of this Amendment the Minister will have more power to refuse some of these special loads, which in many cases cause major inconvenience and annoyance, quite apart from a great deal of expense to the taxpayer; and will he, in fact, be able to reduce the maximum permitted length, which at present I believe is 52 feet—not of special loads but of ordinary loads? Can this new Amendment be used for either of those purposes?
§ LORD CHESHAM
My Lords, the answer broadly is, Yes, if that is what the noble Lord wants. The answer broadly is (that there is a slight loophole for conveying exceptionally large loads without the control of the Minister which the Minister wishes to get, so that he can control and, in some cases, prohibit or otherwise control better than at present these large loads.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.