HC Deb 28 June 1934 vol 291 cc1377-86

The following sub-section shall be inserted after sub-section (3) of section nineteen of the principal Act:—

(3a) The Minister may also, in the case of stage carriages, approve such variation of the aforementioned limits of time as may be embodied in an agreement submitted by a joint industrial council, conciliation board, or other similar body, whether for an undertaking or undertakings, provided for the regulation of working times and rest periods having regard to both the day and the week, provided that the schedules and rotas giving effect to such agreement shall be deposited with and subject to the approval of the traffic commissioners, and providing they are of the opinion that the operation of such working time and rest periods embodied in such schedules and rotas are not likely to be detrimental to the public safety.—[Mr. D. Grenfell.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

7.25 p.m.

Mr. D. GRENFELL

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time.

The intention of this new Clause is to put right a difficulty which has appeared in consequence of the operation of the principal Act, and of the conditions imposed on the men engaged in the transport industry in 1930. There were provisions in Section 19 of that Act regarding the maximum number of hours during which men could be continuously engaged on motor vehicles, and quite unexpectedly that condition was operated to the great detriment of many thousands of men engaged in the transport industry. The Section lays down that it shall not be lawful … for any person to drive or cause or permit any person employed by him or subject to his orders to drive—

  1. (i) for any continuous period of more than five hours and one-half; or
  2. (ii) for continuous periods amounting in the aggregate to more than eleven hours in any period of twenty-four hours commencing two hours after midnight; or
  3. (iii) so that the driver has not at least ten consecutive hours for rest in any period of twenty-four hours calculated from the commencement of any period of driving.
In consequence of these conditions new schedules of hours of employment and schedules for determining the hours of employment were agreed to between employers and men engaged in the transport industry. While the strict provisions of the law have been carried out and are being faithfully carried out, the conditions of continuous employment have led to what is called the split shift. It has been called also the gap, the spread-over and a variety of other terms. It accounts for the present condition which enables men to be employed in the course of the day for a considerable number of hours; but so long as the continuous number of hours of employment is not violated the men can be at the beck and call of the employers for a considerable part of the working day. In many parts of the country men are on duty more or less from early hours in the morning until very late at night without violating the conditions in the principal Act.

This is a matter of very sore grievance to the men in the transport industry. I do not know of a body of workers who have a more justifiable discontent at the action of the Government. I know it was not the intention of the Government responsible for the principal Act to impose such conditions upon these men, but its effect has been very unhappy and has caused them a great deal of hardship. We do not ask in this new Clause that the law shall lay down the condition that there is to be no break of any kind in the course of a shift, but we ask that the Minister shall approve of such variation of the limits of time as may be embodied in an agreement submitted by a joint industrial council, conciliation board or other similar body. There is a request that the Minister shall approve of local agreements, which shall be subject, further, to the approval of the Traffic Commissioners of our great transport areas. We do not ask the Minister to stipulate exactly the number of hours of break in a shift, but ask that he shall give his administrative approval to agreements, so that those who are responsible for proposing that break will know that they must satisfy the Traffic Commissioners in the first instance and, later, the Ministry of Transport.

When these transport workers have a genuine grievance, brought about by a previous Act of Parliament, we urge that it is the duty of the House and of the Minister to repair that wrong done. When a workman subject to an agreement to work no more than 48 hours a week of six days finds that he has to be away from home for 70 or 75 hours in order to fulfil his obligations to his employers, he feels there is something wrong which ought to be set right, and the authority to act are the Traffic Commissioners, who have been given very great powers, and the Minister. We do not ask the Traffic Commissioners to declare universal conditions, to insist that universal working hours shall be observed by every form of transport organisation, but we do ask for the sympathetic interest of the commissioners and of the Minister.

We are not sure that the Clause is so framed that it will accomplish all that we want, because it is difficult to draw up a form of words which will secure all the safeguards which we desire, but the present system is undoubtedly making serious inroads into the domestic life of these men, and having a detrimental effect on their health. Men have to be away from home from 5 o'clock in the morning until 10 or 11 o'clock at night in order to earn one day's wage for a spell of eight or nine hours' work. They suffer breaks of three, four or five hours, during which they have nowhere to go but are left hanging round weary hour after weary hour. We hope that if the Minister cannot accept the Clause he will give an assurance that his Department will take some steps to encourage agreements when they can be brought about, and will require that no voluntary agreement shall be binding unless it is approved by him and by the commissioners.

7.35 p.m.

Mr. T. SMITH

When we discussed this matter in Committee the Minister agreed that Section 19 of the Act of 1930 was not working as well as it might work, and I should have been surprised if he had taken up any other attitude. A good many drivers of passenger vehicles cannot understand why, under that Act of Parliament, they should be called upon to work longer hours for less wages than under the ordinary trade union agreements prior to the passing of that Act. The experience of the last two or three years has shown the need for altering the provisions of that Section 19. When we moved a similar Clause in Committee the Minister said it went far too wide, that if it were accepted certain consequences would follow which he could not accept. We have accordingly amended the Clause.

I would like the House to observe that this is not a one-sided request mainly from the trade unions, because some of the employers' organisations have said that in their opinion there is room for an alteration in Section 19 of the 1930 Act. Therefore I hope that no hon. Member will oppose this new Clause simply because it is moved from these benches. The Clause says that if an agreement comes from a joint industrial council, a conciliation board or other similar body then, subject to the Traffic Commissioners being satisfied that it is in the interests of public safety, the Minister is to have certain powers. The Minister is aware that there is a good deal of dissatisfaction among the drivers of passenger vehicles, and in my opinion it is justifiable dissatisfaction. We know that the Minister is sympathetic. The Clause may not be worded as perhaps it could be by skilled draftsmen, but we ask the Minister to pay some heed to the representations made to him by the General and Transport Workers' Union, backed up by some of the employers' organisations. The Minister has been in communication, and even in negotiation, with some of those bodies, and he might tell us whether he intends to do anything. If he cannot accept the Clause as worded we hope he will do something, when the Bill gets to another place, to meet the joint wishes of those engaged in the industry.

7.38 p.m.

Mr. STANLEY

When a similar Clause to this was moved in Committee, I agreed that it was unfortunate that a Clause in an Act of Parliament which was designed to regulate the hours of labour from the point of view of safety should, in a certain number of cases—because we must not exaggerate the effect—have actually led to a worsening of the conditions of labour. I was unable to accept the Clause then, but said that. I was prepared between then and a further stage, although the matter was extremely difficult, to discuss the matter with the unions to see whether something could be done. I have carried out that promise and have discussed this matter with the union chiefly concerned, and I am only too sorry that the discussions have not resulted in my being able to put something on the Amendment Paper. I explained to the Committee, as I now explain to the House, that I could not accept a Clause drawn as this is, which would take away from the Industrial Court the right of advising me upon this question of hours in relation to safety which was put upon them by the Act of 1930. The Industrial Court take a general and uniform view of the problem and are a far more suitable body to deal with the question. My predecessor, in setting up the machinery, thought that the 13 Traffic Commissioners up and down the country might take different views of this problem, and that there might be a certain lack of uniformity if it were left to them; but although I regard any alteration of that kind as quite impossible I do believe that it would be possible to devise certain variations of the hours laid down in Section 19 which would go a long way to obviate these extremely harassing split duties.

Unfortunately, when I discussed this matter with the union concerned, I found that they thought that nothing was any good whatsoever which was not dependent on a union agreement and which did not exclude from the benefits of whatever concession was made men who happened to be non-unionists. I ask the House to consider my position. Under Section 19 I am concerned only with questions of safety, and not in the least concerned with the question, important as it is, of the relations of employers and employed. My only duty is to see that the hours are consonant with safety. If we were to make any variation of the hours dependent upon a trade union agreement, and therefore upon union labour, what would be the result? We might have two omnibuses running along the same route, one behind the other, and the schedule allowed to one would be proclaimed to be safe because the man driving the omnibus was a trade unionist, and the same schedule would be disallowed, on the ground of insecurity, in the case of the omnibus coming behind because the driver of it was a non-unionist. I am sure the House will realise, concerned as I am, in this case, only with the question of safety, that that was an attitude which it was impossible for me to adopt.

I am still prepared to discuss this matter with a view to getting some amelioration of the position, but I would point out to hon. Members opposite, who no doubt have got in their minds the fact that if any concession is confined to trade unionists and to people covered by an agreement between employers and employed it will be easier to enforce its maintenance, that the Act of 1930 has placed the duty of the enforcement of these provisions upon the Government. There is machinery to do that through the examiners, and as regards staff, we are in a better position now than we were before, to see that any concession is not abused. I am as ready as I was on the previous stage to discuss any possible amelioration, but the lines upon which this Clause is drafted make it impossible for me to accept it.

7.44 p.m.

Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS

I am sorry to hear what the Minister has had to say on this very mild Clause. I thought it was almost as cool as an icecream sandwich on a hot summer day. The first part of the Clause speaks of an agreement submitted by a joint industrial council. I should have thought the Minister would at least have thought that such an agreement was quite safe. As a member of a joint industrial council for the last 10 years, I must say that I wish we had had joint industrial councils in the mining industry many years ago. When a joint industrial council comes to an agreement, that agreement is, generally speaking, sound and good. The Clause also states that we desire to have joint industrial councils, or conciliation boards, or similar bodies. The great grievance as far as we are concerned is the question of the split shift, not only for men but for women. In my Division we have women turning out at 4.30 in the morning. The shift is split three times in the day, and some are going home eight miles from the centre, at 11 o'clock at night. That is a grievance that requires to be remedied. I am sorry that the Minister does not see eye to eye with us on this matter. There is a safety provision in the Amendment. It provides, first, for an industrial council, secondly, for a conciliation board, and thirdly for any other similar body, and finally it is to be subject to the approval of the Traffic Commissioners. The Traffic Commissioners are there to ensure safety, and surely they will see that no agreements are made unless they are for the safety of the public, otherwise they will not ratify them. There is also the proviso that only such agreements should be adopted as are not likely to be detrimental to tie public safety. I do not know whether the Minister saw in the newspapers this morning a statement by one of the Traffic Commissioners. I think it was this morning, but I am not sure, because days are now so long for me. I have been accustomed to a six-hour shift before I came to this House, and now I am blacklegging and doing 14 to 15 hours a day. We are all doing it. The commissioner said, when a driver told him that his wages, before off-takes, were 32s. a week: "How can you expect to get capable and competent men at 32s. a week as drivers?" It is a disgrace. Surely, the Minister will agree that if a joint industrial council agrees in regard to proper wages and the safety of the public he might accept our new Clause. I trust that in any case he will not put on the Whips and that he will let us win for once in a while.

7.48 p.m.

Mr. MANDER

I must confess to a feeling of disappointment at the reply given by the Minister. I find it difficult to understand why he cannot accept the Amendment. The Amendment is not compulsory or mandatory. It starts with the word "may." He is not obliged to accept any of the recommendations made to him. If, however, any recommendations were made they would convey the general wishes of the employers and the employed.

Mr. STANLEY

There is a third party, and that is the public whose safety is concerned. An agreement between employers and employed does not necessarily mean that the interests of the public have been properly safeguarded.

Mr. MANDER

That would be a very strong point if the Amendment were mandatory, but seeing that the discretion is left in the hands of the Minister, if he feels that the public point of view has not been safeguarded it would be easy to refer the recommendation back to the joint industrial council, pointing out that in the public interest certain changes should be made, and possibly they would reconsider their position and put forward something else. The Government have recently made an advance with regard to the powers and the decisions of joint industrial councils in connection with cotton trade wages in Lancashire, and I thought that this was a very mild and simple opportunity for extending the principle in another direction.

Mr. D. GRENFELL

The Minister gave a hint or a promise that he would again see the union representatives, if they approached him.

Mr. STANLEY

I must make it quite clear that I am open to be approached again on the lines that I indicated in Committee and here, if the unions so desire.

Mr. GRENFELL

In view of that statement, we are ready to withdraw the Amendment, in the hope that we shall be able to come to some understanding which will enable part if not the whole of what we desire to be adopted.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.