HC Deb 13 June 1955 vol 542 cc276-90

3.47 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Major Gwilym Lloyd-George)

I beg to move, That the Regulations made by Her Majesty in Council under the Emergency Powers Act, 1920, by Order dated 31st May, 1955, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th June, shall continue in force, subject, however, to the provisions of Section 2 (4) of the said Act. I shall, of course, confine myself to matters strictly relevant to these Regulations. When it was clear that there had been a stoppage of work on the railways on a large scale it was incumbent upon the Government to do everything in their power to ensure that essential supplies and services were maintained. The situation which had arisen was fraught with such serious possibilities for the life of the community that the Government thought it right to advise the Proclamation of an Emergency under Section 1 of the Emergency Powers Act, 1920, and the making of regulations under Section 2.

Section 1 of the Act provides that if at any time it appears to Her Majesty that any action has been taken or is threatened which is calculated, by interfering with the supply and distribution of food, water, fuel, or light, or with the means of locomotion, to deprive the community, or any substantial portion of the community, of the essentials of life, Her Majesty may, by proclamation, declare that a state of emergency exists.

Section 2 of the Act provides that Her Majesty may, by Order in Council, make regulations for securing the essentials of life to the community. Fortunately, it has not often been necessary to make use of these powers since the Act was passed in 1920, but when a situation arises which carries with it a serious threat to the supplies and services essential to the community it is the paramount duty of the Government of the day to make use of the machinery provided by Parliament for such a contingency.

The last occasion on which these powers were exercised was that of the dock strike of 1949, when the Government of the day found it necessary to have recourse to this emergency machinery in order to counter the threat which that strike involved to the maintenance of certain of the essentials of life of the community.

The Act of 1920 provides that where a Proclamation of Emergency has been made, the occasion thereof shall forthwith be communicated to Parliament and that Emergency Regulations made under Section 2 are to be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after they are made. The occasion of the Proclamation of Emergency was communicated to Parliament at the first moment at which this could be done—that is, in the Gracious Speech—and the Emergency Regulations were laid on the first day on which this Parliament assembled, namely, 7th June.

Under the Act, the Emergency Regulations do not continue in force after the expiration of seven days from the time when they are laid unless a Resolution is passed by both Houses providing for their continuance. These Regulations will, therefore, lapse at midnight tomorrow unless they are approved by both Houses.

When the Government came to the conclusion that Emergency Regulations should be made, they decided to include only the minimum number of powers which, as far as could be foreseen, would be likely to be required. The code of Regulations which we are considering today consists to a large extent of provisions suspending or relaxing certain of the ordinary restrictions and requirements of the law so as to enable the maximum use to be made of road transport. The first seven Regulations are all concerned with the relaxation of requirements with regard to the use of goods and passenger vehicles.

For instance, under Regulation 1, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation has issued a general authority permitting the use of goods vehicles without the authority of carriers' licences, and under Regulation 2 regional transport commissioners have been empowered to permit public service vehicles to carry fare-paying passengers without having a road service licence.

I do not think that there will be any dispute with the view that in a railway strike involving, as it does, the stoppage of a considerable proportion of both freight and passenger trains, it is right that the ordinary law should be relaxed in order to enable the maximum use to be made of road transport.

I should like to say a word about Regulation 8, since this is a Regulation which has unfortunately, and necessarily, involved the public in a certain amount of inconvenience.

Mr. Leslie Hale (Oldham, West)

If the Home Secretary is passing from the subject of passenger transport, may I put one point to him on a matter, not of criticism, but of detail? The position so far as Oldham is concerned is that Wakes Week starts next Saturday. Fifty thousand people from Oldham will be seeking transport to the seaside on Friday and Saturday night. No one who has not seen a Lancashire Wakes Week knows just what it means. All the factories will be closed and the normal need for passenger bus services will not exist locally.

As I understand, it would be in order for buses to be diverted from the normal stage carriage services and be applied, if the Oldham Corporation or the owners were willing, to transport without stage carriage licences to Blackpool, Southport and Fleetwood over the weekend to carry these passengers, who, otherwise, will not get their holiday. I shall not criticise the right hon. and gallant Gentleman in detail if he does not answer my question at once, but it is urgent and I need to get the information to Oldham tonight. Do we have to get anyone's permission to do as I have said? If so, do we have to make a formal application to the traffic commissioner? Can that be done quite simply? Is it the sort of thing which can be dealt with in that way?

Major Lloyd-George

The answer, I think, is that the proper method is to apply to the regional traffic commissioner straight away.

Mr. Hale

On the telephone?

Major Lloyd-George

Yes, on the telephone; I should think so.

I was about to deal with Regulation 8, regarding postal and telegraph services. This Regulation, unfortunately, has caused a considerable amount of inconvenience. Regulation 8—and, incidentally, a Regulation in the same terms was included in the 1949 code—gives my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General power to impose certain restrictions on postal, telegraph and telephone services, and in the exercise of these powers my right hon. Friend has felt it necessary to refuse, up to today, to accept packages of over 8 oz. in weight.

The House will have noted the substantial improvements which have been brought into effect by my right hon. Friend today, and we hope that these improvements will go a long way towards removing the inconvenience which, as we are well aware, was involved in the previous restriction.

I do not think I need say very much about the remaining Regulations, since, so far, it has not been necessary to take drastic action under these provisions, although the Government are satisfied that it is necessary to have them in reserve in case the situation should deteriorate. I should, perhaps, say at this stage that, as far as I can ascertain, no person has been convicted of any offence under these Regulations.

I should like to say a word about Regulation 18, which deals with the employment of police forces. Under that Regulation, I have given directions for the movement of reinforcements from the provinces to the Metropolitan Police district in order to help the Metropolitan Police to cope with the special traffic difficulties in London, of which hon. Members are very well aware. I am bound to say that they have done a great deal to assist in keeping on the move the enormous flow of traffic which has converged on London during the strike.

Under the Act of 1920, the Proclamation of Emergency is valid for only a month—

Mrs. E. M. Braddock (Liverpool, Exchange)

Is that all that the Home Secretary intends to say about Regulation 18? I was wondering whether he would refer to paragraph 4, in view of the fact that quite a number of the police forces, and particularly the detective branch, have expressed grave dissatisfaction about the method of payment that is being established for the additional work they have to do. I hope that in presenting the Emergency Regulations the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will not try to create another grievance in the detective branch of the police.

Major Lloyd-George

I assure the hon. Lady that that is not my intention. If I have anything to say on that point, I will refer to it later. I think I know what the hon. Lady has in mind.

Under the 1920 Act, the Proclamation of Emergency is valid only for a month and the Emergency Regulations, if not revoked earlier, will automatically lapse at the end of that time unless a further proclamation and new regulations are made. It is my earnest hope—and, I am sure, the hope of every Member, in all parts of the House—that I shall not have to stand at this Box again to ask for approval of the continuance of these Emergency Regulations.

I should, perhaps, say that it will not be possible, immediately the strike is over, to bring back everything to normal at once and to undo all that has been done under these Regulations, in particular to bring to an end the relaxations which have been granted in respect of vehicles. It may be necessary, therefore, to keep these Regulations in force for two or three days after the strike comes to an end, but I can and gladly do give an assurance to the House that the Emergency Regulations will not be kept in being for one day longer than is absolutely necessary.

4.1 p.m.

Mr. James Callaghan (Cardiff, South-East)

The Home Secretary, in moving this Motion, recognised the greatness of the powers which the Government are asking the House and the country to accord them in these circumstances. They are very wide powers indeed. Although the Home Secretary did not dilate on them, I think he recognised that the Government are asking for exceptional powers. I think he did so in his concluding sentence, in which he gave the House an assurance that in no circumstances would the Regulations be continued for longer than two or three days after the end of the strike.

I would ask him this question about that. I take it that he was referring—and I am sure he was—to the railway strike when he said that, and that he was not referring to the docks strike or to any of the other emergencies that may be besetting us at the present time.

Major Lloyd-George

It was the railway strike that brought these Regulations into being.

Mr. Callaghan

I am much obliged. I expected that that would be the answer, but it is important that we should be clear, and get it properly on the record, that it is the railway strike in respect of which these emergency powers are sought, and that when the railway strike is completed these powers will be withdrawn. I am sure that the Home Secretary will think it proper that we should get an assurance of this sort in view of the nature of the powers being asked.

I agree with the Home Secretary that the police have worked wonders in clearing the traffic in the Metropolitan area and also in the large provincial cities. It has been astonishing to see that in some areas the flow of traffic has gone more easily since the emergency, when so much more traffic has been on the roads, than it went beforehand. While many of us have been snarled in traffic jams from time to time, we have found at other times that we have got with remarkable celerity through places where usually there is congestion. I can ascribe that only to the remarkable work of the police in keeping the streets clear.

I hope that the Home Secretary or some other member of the Government will take up the point mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) about proper facilities for payment of the police brought in from provincial areas. A number of us have had representations or have heard of complaints, and it would be quite wrong, as I am sure the Home Secretary will agree, to ask these men for extra efforts and yet to deny them proper rewards for the work they are doing. I hope that before the debate is finished there will be a statement from the Government on that subject.

What has contributed to the success of the work of the police has been, of course, the great amount of courtesy that there has been on the roads, courtesy displayed by all types of road users. That has helped us very considerably. Of course, there has been congestion, but that was unavoidable.

We recognise, as the Home Secretary said, that the Government have the paramount responsibility of keeping the vital services of the nation running. We recognise—and it has not been challenged inside the House—that the men have the right to withdraw their labour. If these two things are to be brought together, then, obviously, the Opposition cannot oppose the Regulations as they are laid before the House, and it would not be our intention to do so, but they are extensive powers that have been asked for, and there are one or two points I would raise, particularly about transport.

There is, I think, some misunderstanding about the use of vehicles, particularly of goods vehicles. Regulation 1 provides that there must be an authority which, I understand, the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation has given, for the use of goods vehicles for purposes outside those for which their licences were originally given. Am I right in thinking that that general authority which the Minister has given must be supplemented by a specific authority from the regional traffic commissioners in respect of particular journeys? There is misunderstanding about this point.

Applications are being made to regional traffic commissioners in respect of particular vehicles, and in many cases journeys are being made before the applications are sanctioned. Either some regional traffic commissioners are having to deal with some unnecessary paper work or, alternatively, journeys are being made which, at any rate at the moment of being started, are not legal. I ask the Minister to be good enough to clear up that point. If journeys are being undertaken without proper authority, then, in the event of an accident, there is a great liability falling upon persons that would not be covered by insurance. It is, therefore, important that we should clear the matter up properly so that everyone may know where he stands.

I think we are all surprised—at least, I am—at the way in which traffic is being carried on the roads in present circumstances. I confess that I did not think that anything like as great a volume of goods would be carried as has been carried. However, this has been accomplished because Section 19 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, has become a deadletter. That Section says that, with a view to protecting the public against the risks which arise from excessive fatigue of drivers, there must be certain provisions relating to the driving of lorries, and provisions are laid down. For instance, a lorry driver may not drive more than 5½ hours continuously, or for more than 11 hours in 24.

That Section of that Act has become the first casualty of the Emergency Regulations.

There are many drivers today who are driving far more than those amounts of time. I read only this morning of one lorry driver who drove 700 miles in 48 hours to deliver five tons of fish from one of our larger ports. To drive a huge lorry 700 miles in 48 hours is a very tiring performance. I think the House ought to take account of the fact that a great amount of the traffic being moved now is being moved because men are working longer hours than the House normally would think it proper to demand of them.

Two questions are raised by this. There is the question of the protection of the public, and there is also the question of protecting the men themselves who are doing this work and doing it beyond the ordinary limits of their duties. I hope that this Regulation will be revoked as soon as possible, because although it is a Regulation that is necessary at present it should, in our view, be brought to an end at the earliest possible time.

Looking at the transport situation generally, it seems as though long-distance road transport is able to handle fairly successfully the general merchandise. The carriage of minerals, however, if it has not already done so, will quite soon start to create difficulties. The Minister obviously thought so, because a statement put out in his name said that he might require to requisition tipper lorries for the carriage of minerals. I ask him to tell us what his intentions are in this matter, and whether the carriage of mineral traffic is falling so far in arrears at present that he feels it necessary to requisition tipper lorries, and, if so, what general instructions and regulations he proposes to make on that matter.

The Midlands and the North seem to be the most difficult traffic areas, as far as one can make out from the reports which are coming in, and it is there, no doubt, that the Minister will first want to use his powers. Will he give us some indication of the transport situation, under the Regulations, in the Midlands and the northern industrial areas at present?

The general conclusion that can be drawn so far is that we have far greater reserves of road transport than we had thought possible when the emergency began. It is upon those reserves that we have been able to call to get merchandise moved. I am sorry that British Road Services has not been able to do more of the work than it has done. It has certainly carried a great deal, but I cannot fail to point out to the Government, as I am sure the Minister has already experienced, that at present people have to look for hauliers to carry their goods instead of having as many recognised centres to carry their goods as they would have had hitherto. This is one of the disadvantages of the break-up of British Road Services, with the excellent clearing houses which it provided, to which traders could go to find out what capacity was available. That facility has been curtailed and, in some areas, has disappeared.

If the Government learn the right lesson from this experience, I am certain that they will not proceed with the final destruction of British Road Services but will see the great advantages that have accrued during the present emergency from having a large-scale road organisation of this sort to which they can turn for the carriage of goods.

Those are all the points about transport that I wish to raise at present, except to say that it is our fervent wish on this side of the House that these Regulations will not prove necessary for a single day longer than any of us can help. I am sure that the efforts of all of us on both sides of the House will be bent to bringing the emergency to an end at the earliest possible moment.

4.13 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Robinson (St. Pancras, North)

I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) raised a matter under Regulation 18, dealing with the employment of the police forces. I understood that the Home Secretary promised to obtain a reply. I hope that at the same time the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will make an inquiry into a rather specialised aspect of the payment of the police. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is responsible for the Metropolitan Police and I want to raise the particular question of the work of detective-constables and detective-sergeants in this emergency.

I understand that the ordinary uniformed police of London are receiving extra pay for the overtime work which they are doing in the emergency. I am also given to understand that the Home Office has refused overtime pay for members of the C.I.D., who are doing equally arduous overtime duty in the course of this emergency. I have been approached by some of these detectives in my constituency. One of them tells me that he has been doing night duty continually from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. ever since the emergency started, on 4th June. He has been doing it for a week and expects to go on doing it for another week. Before 4th June he did another 16 hours' overtime work. That means that in the past 12 days he has done 48 hours' overtime, for which he has received no additional payment whatever over and above his normal remuneration.

I understand that the argument of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's Department is that a detective receives a "detective allowance" which is meant to compensate him for the few additional hours which he might normally be expected to have to work each week. It is known as a "commuted overtime payment," but no one has suggested that there should be commuted overtime of 32 hours a week. Payment is at the rate of Is. 11d. per day for a detective-constable and 2s. 1d. for a detective-sergeant. The general impression is that ordinary overtime for which a detective receives the special allowance would be in the region of 10 hours. These men are doing up to 32 hours a week and have been refused any special overtime.

One of my correspondents refers to paragraph 84 of the Oaksey Report on Police Conditions of Service, which recommends that compensation should be provided for C.I.D. officers who are called upon to perform long hours of duties in case of emergency, in other words, in precisely the conditions in which these men are working today. The Oaksey Committee recommended that special compensation should be arranged. I hope that this is an administrative oversight, because I cannot believe that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, who is responsible to Parliament for this fine body, the Metropolitan Police and the C.I.D., which is doing such very good work in this emergency, would wish to behave so meanly towards them. I hope that he will be in a position to make the matter clear before the end of the debate.

4.17 p.m.

The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter)

Perhaps it would be convenient to the House if I reply to the questions on transport which have been put by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), but I am sure he will forgive me if, first, on behalf of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Home Secretary, I deal with the points raised about the police by the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) and the hon. Lady the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock).

My right hon. and gallant Friend informs me that the uniformed police have been working on a 12-hour basis instead of their normal eight and that when overtime is worked on an ordinary day they receive payment at the rate of one and a half times the ordinary rate; and that when they work on their rest day they receive payment at the rate of one and a half times ordinary pay. I am informed by my right hon. and gallant Friend that no question of overtime normally arises in the case of detectives, but that on the present occasion detectives claim that they are working longer than usual because 600 uniformed aides have been released for ordinary duty. That matter is at present under consideration.

The first point made by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East was with respect to the relaxation of the need to operate goods vehicles with a carrier's licence, which is authorised by Regulation 1. At the beginning of the emergency no general relaxation was made and, as the hon. Member said, it was necessary to apply in individual cases to the offices of regional transport commissioners. But on 10th June I exercised the powers given to me under Regulation 1 to give a general authority. Since then it has not been necessary to make individual applications to the offices of regional transport commissioners. Consequently, there can be no question of a journey being undertaken without authority and, therefore, the insurance difficulty which the hon. Member had in mind cannot now arise.

The hon. Member referred to the hours worked by drivers and to the fact that that was possibly because, to some extent, Section 19 of the 1930 Act, was not being operated. No formal relaxation of Section 19 has been made and the general relaxation under Regulation 1 to which I have referred expressly excludes any interference with the operation of that Section. The hon. Member referred to the use of tippers and to the fact that I have authorised the regional transport commissioners to requisition these vehicles if necessary. Some days ago there was a shortage of them for emergency purposes, although there is a large number of them in the country. The reason for that shortage was that this type of vehicle tends to be employed fairly regularly on long-term contracts, such as on aerodrome construction. Therefore, in the early days of the emergency a sufficient supply of them was not available.

I delegated this power of requisition in order to strengthen the hands of the regional transport commissioners. That it did so strengthen their hands is, I think, reflected by the fact that a greater number of these vehicles has now become available, and the general shortage has now been overcome. There may be individual shortages in individual areas but, broadly speaking, they are in adequate supply. The power of requisitioning, the House may be interested to know, did not require to be used, but the fact that it was there no doubt helped to contribute to increasing the availability of these vehicles.

Mr. Callaghan

I did not realise that the right hon. Gentleman was leaving the question of hours quite so quickly. I was under the impression, obviously wrongly, that Section 19 had been relaxed. If it has not, I think we should know more from the Minister about the Government's attitude to this matter. I am sure he will not deny that the provisions of the Section are being broken widely every day, and almost knowingly, by many drivers in order to carry goods, and, presumably, if they are not carrying out that Section they are breaking the law. What is the Minister's attitude? Does he want them strictly to adhere to the Section or does he intend to relax it?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

I think we were wise not to relax the Section because to have done so would have taken from the drivers the protection to which Parliament thought they were entitled, both as a protection to themselves and a protection to the public.

It may be that in the course of dealing with an emergency of this sort the men have not found it necessary to insist strictly on their rights. The hon. Gentleman may be right in that, but it is the position that the law has not been relaxed, and I think it ought not to be relaxed, for the reasons which I have given. I think it would be wrong, even in this emergency, to deprive the road haulage drivers of the very proper protection which Parliament has seen fit to give them.

Mr. David Renton (Huntingdon)

Surely the position is that, even in this emergency, if a man finds it necessary to drive longer hours than those laid down by statute, he is still committing an offence for which he can be prosecuted.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

It is often the case in dealing with an emergency that for one reason or another the people concerned do not always strictly abide by the statutory provisions. That may well be so. I think it is important in these circumstances that what is largely a matter of common sense should be sorted out on a common sense basis by the persons responsible. With respect to my hon. and learned Friend, I am sure that is the right way to look at this matter.

Mr. Percy Collick (Birkenhead)

Surely that means, if it means anything at all, that the Minister is condoning a breach of the law.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

I would not myself have expressed it in that way. Nor do I think it necessary for the hon. Gentleman to do so. As I have said, this is more a matter of common sense.

Mr. Collick

Common sense?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

Yes, common sense. I think this is the right way to handle it.

Mr. Eric Fletcher (Islington, East)

Surely it is very unfair to these men. Will the Minister make clear whether or not he expects Section 19 to be observed?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

The question whether anyone is to be prosecuted for a breach of that provision, or of any provision, is a matter for the normal prosecuting authorities—the police, and so on. I know that in their normal way they will handle this situation sensibly. That, I think, is the proper approach.

Mr. David Jones (The Hartlepools)

I think it goes further than that. Supposing a driver decides to exercise his right under the law to decline to work more than 5½ hours, and is penalised by his employer, can he have a guarantee that the Government and the Minister will be behind him?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

Anyone who exercises his rights is quite entitled to stand on them, and if any suggestion is made that anyone is being penalised for so doing I shall be very happy to look into the case. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I said deliberately that the provisions of Section 19 had not been suspended for the very purpose, with which I think he sympathises, of giving these men the protection of it. I think that that should satisfy the hon. Gentleman.

As regards the more general issue which the question raises, it is, of course, a fact that the emergency has demonstrated, as he said, that there is a very large reserve of road transport in the country of which it has been possible to make use to maintain essential supplies and services. I do not, of course—and he does not expect me to—agree to the reference, which I think he could not forbear to make, to the provisions of the Act of 1953. I can only say that if people are unable to obtain the road haulage which, in this situation, they require, they do not necessarily have to look for it themselves, although most enterprising people will probably do so; if they are unable to find it, they can, in each region, go to the regional transport commissioners.

I think I am entitled to say that these officers and their staffs, although they have been under very heavy pressure indeed during the last fortnight, have given extremely good and efficient service to those who have required haulage. I am sure that the House would wish to pay tribute to the very long hours and hard work that these officials have put in.

In reply to the debating point which the hon. Gentleman made, it has, of course, been the fact that these officers have been available if anyone has required haulage.

Finally, may I say that I fully agree with the hope which the hon. Gentleman was good enough to express in his concluding sentence.

Mr. K. Robinson

The Home Secretary said that the question of overtime pay for detectives was under examination. Can he say whether the Home Office has refused an application for such overtime? If so, does his statement make an advance on that position?

Major Lloyd-George

I cannot say more than has been said by my right hon. Friend. The matter is now under urgent examination. That is all I can say about it.

Mr. Collick

I am astonished that the Home Secretary, in introducing these Regulations, did not even think fit to mention Section 19. Surely the House is to be told why this Section is included in the Regulations.

Major Lloyd-George

It was used in 1949 in exactly the same way. There is no departure from the ordinary practice. It is exactly the same provision.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That the Regulations made by Her Majesty in Council under the Emergency Powers Act, 1920, by Order dated 31st May, 1955, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th June, shall continue in force, subject, however, to the provisions of Section 2 (4) of the said Act.