CLAUSE 14.—(Records as to hours of work, journeys, loads, etc.) (Hansard, 20 July 1933)

Mr. STANLEY
I beg to move, in page 17, line 30, at the beginning, to insert the words: Subject to the provisions of regulations made under this section. This Amendment and the next Amendment—In page 17, line 31, to leave out the words "and subject to," and to insert instead thereof the word "the"—are practically drafting in character, but I think they will have the effect of making it even more plain that I have the power by these regulations to prescribe different requirements in the case of different classes of vehicles. I think it was clear already that I did have that power, but it will be made even more clear by this drafting change.

§ Mr. ALED ROBERTS
I am sorry to have to ask the Minister to make himself a little more clear in regard to this matter. He says that this is a drafting Amendment, and extends his powers in a way that will make it easier for him to do the things which in Committee he said he was going to do. I think that everyone in the Committee was anxious that the Minister should have power to ask from certain trades less detail than 2032 is laid down in Clause 14 as it now stands, but I am doubtful whether, even with this Amendment, he is taking sufficient power to do all that we want him to do. The Clause, even as thus amended, will say that, subject to the regulations which will be made, the holder of a licence shall cause to be kept, in accordance with the regulations, current records showing certain things. Not being a, lawyer, I do not know, arid that is why I am asking at this stage, whether it is quite clear that the regulations which the Minister can make will give him the power to tell certain trades that they need not keep all these records which the Bill says they must keep.
This is a matter of very great importance. In Committee we went into it in detail and the Minister admitted its importance. Many of us pressed him to take these powers, and he said he would consider doing so. If this be the Amendment which is intended to give him these powers, I should like some assurance that it will do so. What we all had in view in Committee was that, while certain people, such as haulage contractors with "A" licences, and holders of "B" licences, would not be under any hardship in having to keep the records laid down in the Clause, because the keeping of these records is part of their ordinary business, yet there are plenty of traders—for instance, distributive traders and private traders holding "C" licences—upon whom it would be a hardship and an expense to have to keep records of details such as itineraries of journeys, weights, and so on. From the discussion in the Committee, I do not think the Minister ever contemplated being unreasonable, but I would ask him now for some assurance that it will be possible for him to be as reasonable as I think he intended to be.

Mr. STANLEY
I assured my hon. Friend in Committee that I had that power. This drafting Amendment does not give me increased power, but makes it clear that I have the necessary power. I think it is quite clear that I can prescribe, for different classes of traffic, different ways of fulfilling the requirements of the Clause in such a manner as to ensure that no class of traffic will be subjected to undue hardship. I quite see that, in the cases to which my hon. Friend referred, different requirements 2033 will have to be drawn up in such a simple way that they will cause no great difficulty. I am sure that under the Clause as it stands I have the power to do that.

§ Mr. ALED ROBERTS
I beg to move, in page 17 line 41, after the word "weight," to insert the words "or number of packages."
This may strike the casual observer as unnecessary, but it seems to me to be very necessary from the point of view of convenience. The Minister has already told us that he has power to vary all the requirements, but it does not seem to me that he has power to substitute for any one of these particulars some other particular which will answer the same purpose. There is a requirement in the Clause by which the Minister may make provision for requiring drivers of authorised vehicles to carry documents and to make entries thereon. With class "A" licence holders, and with many of the "B" holders, the position will arise that the document which will contain all the weights and other details required by the Bill will not be the actual document which the driver is in the habit of carrying.
It is the custom in the haulage trade for the driver to be given a delivery order, which he presents at the place where he intends to pick up goods, to show that he is entitled to pick them up. He gives a signed receipt and, when he gets to the other end, he obtains a signature to cover himself. In the vast majority of cases the weight is not mentioned. That is a matter that is dealt with by means of a quotation before the load is carried, and a settlement of the account is made when the goods get to the other end. The driver is only concerned with the number of packages. He simply puts so many bales of cotton on to the wagon. I am anxious to make some provision by which weights may be kept at the office in the ordinary way and shall not form part of the records carried by the driver. The Minister said in Committee that he would consider 2034 this matter. He has not put an Amendment down and I hope he will be able to accept this.

§ Sir JOSEPH LAMB
I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. STANLEY
I certainly have no objection to the Amendment in principle, although I think it will probably be inoperative, because it seems to me that either the packages will be of standard weight, in which case a simple multiplication of the weight by the number of packages will give the total weight and there would be no need to fill it in, or, if they were of no standard weight and had not been weighed, it seems to me that to know the number of unweighed packages would really be quite useless. Provided that we can make it plain that the number of packages is purely an alternative to the weight, and that we do not diminish in any way our power to require this information as to weight, I will certainly consider the Amendment. I am advised that there might be some danger that this would to some extent derogate from our powers in regard to weight. I will consider an alternative form of words but I cannot at the moment see the circumstances under which this provision is going to be of much practical good.

§ Sir S. CRIPPS
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman after the recent Division is in such a chastened mood, and I hope the House will proceed quickly before other events happen so that we may get many of these Amendments allowed.

§ Sir PHILIP DAWSON
I beg to move, in page 18, line 21, after the word "agriculture," to insert the words "or in the business of a travelling showman."
I think travelling showmen should really come under the class of agriculture because the mileage that their vehicles make in a year is not more than 400 or 500 miles, they do not occupy the road very much, their loads are always the same and the safety of their vehicles is provided for under the Road Act.

§ Mr. ALED ROBERTS
I beg to second the Amendment.

§ Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM
The effect of this would be to place the travelling showman in the same position as the agriculturist in regard to a bias being exercised towards him in the matter of the keeping of records. We think the travelling showman is in very much the same position as the agriculturist inasmuch as he only uses the highway in a limited way. It is because we believe the Amendment is an essentially fair one, and not because we are in the least afraid of the result of a Division, that we are willing to accept the Amendment.

§ Mr. LOGAN
Acceptance of this would not be applicable to any Cabinet Minister going by motor car, would it?

Mr. STANLEY
I beg to move, in page 18, line 29, after the word "period," to insert the words "not exceeding six months."
This deals again with a point that was raised in Committee and refers to the provision that, if so required, these documents shall be retained by the licence holder after the normal period at which he is allowed to dispense with them, in view of the fact that when the normal period terminates proceedings may be pending. It was, however, pointed out that the provision is quite indefinite and he might be required to keep the documents for ever. I feel that there is no harm in putting in the limitation of six months, that is, another six months after the time he is normally required to keep them.