( left - right ) NICHOLSON and JOHNSON
THE GOVERNMENT has failed to live up to a promise from Minister of Justice, Senator A.J. Nicholson, who had assured the Opposition that the state would provide an outline of its proposed action against operators of heavy trailers likely to breach new legislation against overweight vehicles.
During the Senate debate on the Road Traffic Amendment Act two weeks ago, Senator Anthony Johnson, Leader of Opposition Business, asked that the Government tell the nation what would be done about those heavy trailers already in the island that could soon be in breach of the weight measurement provisions in the bill.
WEIGHT PROVISIONS
The legislation introduces the weight provisions and authorises the police and the Island Traffic Authority to fine and seize goods from vehicles in breach.
Senator Johnson had argued that the legislation should not have been debated without the Government explaining how it would treat large vehicles, as Jamaica's roads are not equipped to deal with the large trailers that are necessary for commercial activity in the modern world.
"We have to face the fact that carrying heavier and heavier loads is the way the world is going," Senator Johnson had said, while noting that the Government should ensure that the road network is upgraded to sustain the heavy trailers.
During the debate, Senator Nicholson admitted he was unable to respond to the concern, but promised he would ask that an answer be provided on the matter when the legislation was returned to the House of Representatives for final approval.
"What I will do, I will advise the Minister of Transport and Works (Robert Pickersgill), and I will ask him to address that because the public really ought to know," Senator Nicholson had said.
But during Wednesday's
sitting of the House of Representatives, the legislation was passed without mention of the concern outlined in the Senate.
In piloting the legislation, Mr. Pickersgill stated that the House had already debated the legislation fully, and that there was no need to discuss the matter again.
The legislation was returned to the House, despite being previously passed, because there was need to approve two minor amendments proposed by the Senate.
