HC Deb 08 May 1968 vol 764 cc396-400
5. Mr. Marten

asked the Minister of Transport what recent representations he has received from the farming community about the effects of the Transport Bill on farming.

Mr. Carmichael

We have received a number of representations, mainly concerned with the goods transport provisions of the Bill, and we, with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, have consulted the industry.

Mr. Marten

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the anxieties of the farming community about the increased costs which will fall either on the farmer or the consumer or the taxpayers through the Price Review? As the Minister of Agriculture has said that he cannot calculate what will be the cost to the farming community, is not this a curious way to run the Government?

Mr. Carmichael

We have no evidence that there will be any marked increase in agricultural costs. Traffic will be diverted to the railways if the rail service concerned is good enough in terms of speed and cost. Where perishable goods are involved, it is likely that the railways will accept that these constitute a special case for road transport and will not even object.

Mr. Manuel

Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the main fears of the farming community was in relation to the carriage of livestock and that, since these provisions were removed from the Bill, those fears no longer exist?

Mr. Carmichael

A number of other concessions have been made to the farming community as well—for instance, in relation to drivers' hours—because we recognise that it has certain special difficulties, including seasonal difficulties. These have been met in the Bill as far as possible

19. Mr. J. E. B. Hill

asked the Minister of Transport what representations he has received from people or firms in Norfolk against the Transport Bill; and what answer he has given them.

Mr. Carmichael

We have received a number of representations from individuals and firms in Norfolk about the Transport Bill. They are mostly concerned with the road haulage provisions of the Bill and appropriate replies have been sent.

Mr. Hill

Is the Minister aware that I can send him plenty more of a severely practical and objective nature? Does he agree that the Bill, unless amended, raises the grave danger of half hamstringing a county's transport merely because of its geographical situation?

Mr. Carmichael

There is no evidence that any special difficulties will be anticipated in Norfolk. There are arrangements in the Bill whereby rail will only compete for traffic when it will be more economic. The criterion which has been laid down will safeguard Norfolk as well as the rest of the country.

20. Mr. J. E. B. Hill

asked the Minister of Transport what study he has made of the availability of hostel or similar accommodation in the London area for those long-distance drivers who will now be unable to return home in one day because of the proposed restriction on drivers' hours in the Transport Bill; and what conclusions he has reached.

Mr. Carmichael

I would refer the hon. Member to the replies given to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) on 6th November, 1967.—[Vol. 753, c. 67–68.]

Mr. Hill

Whatever that reply may have been, is it not nonsensical to risk not making the optimum use of expensive equipment, vehicles and skilled operators by preventing their taking a return load in one day and getting home?

Mr. Carmichael

This is true, except that it must be accepted that the safety factors involved in the return load are also important. It is now 30-odd years since the drivers' hours were fixed at 11 and it is thought that a reduction is needed, particularly considering the very big increase in traffic over the last 35 years.

Mr. Lane

Would the hon. Gentleman consider coming to visit East Anglia during the recess to hear for himself what some people feel and fear about the Transport Bill?

Mr. Carmichael

I have travelled a great deal, not perhaps in East Anglia, but in many other areas and in Scotland, where we had many of the same objections. I am glad to say that the more the Bill becomes known by people in areas such as these, the more they realise that the campaign launched against it was badly organised and ill-founded.

25. Mr. Buchanan-Smith

asked the Minister of Transport what representations he has received from the milk distributive trade regarding the effects of the Transport Bill; and what reply he has sent.

Mr. Carmichael

We have had several such representations, mainly about quantity licensing and drivers' hours. We are still considering some of the points raised.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith

Does the hon. Gentleman remember that I wrote to him as long ago as 16th February on behalf of an important section of the trade in Scotland and still have not had any reply or comment? Does he not appreciate that there is great concern in this industry, which provides a seven-day service, about working a seven-day week and about the effects of the new provisions for drivers' hours?

Mr. Carmichael

I must apologise for the delay in answering and I will take it up at the Ministry. There have, of course, been many letters and circulars from hon. Members on the Transport Bill and the Ministry is working very hard answering them. We are still concerned, although we want to help in every way possible, that milkmen must be given the same chance to be fit and ready for their work, so as not to cause accidents, as any other driver. The safety aspect is very important.

Mr. Manuel

Is my hon. Friend aware that the vast majority of vehicles used in milk distribution are exempt from the licensing provisions of the Bill, and that the question of the heavier vehicles, over 16 tons and going over 100 miles, are still being considered?

Mr. Carmichael

It is true that vehicles under 30 cwt., which are the bulk of the daily delivery vehicles, are completely exempt, not from the drivers' hours provisions but from the other provisions of the Bill.

Mr. MacArthur

Has the hon. Gentleman considered the Bill's serious impact on milk deliveries in rural areas over long distances, particularly in Scotland? Is he aware of the growing demand in Scotland for the withdrawal of this wretched Bill, and will he try to influence his right hon. Friend to withdraw it?

Mr. Carmichael

I am sorry, but I am not aware of this growing demand. As I said, I think that the campaign did not really get off the ground. I met as many Scottish hauliers as most hon. Members and I found that, once the Bill had been explained to them, they frequently took a totally different view from the popular image given by hon. Members opposite.

27. Mr. Costain

asked the Minister of Transport what representations he has received from the various canal and waterway associations on the Transport Bill; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Carmichael

Several associations interested in the various recreational and amenity uses of the nationalised inland waterways have made constructive suggestions. Some of these have led to Government amendments to the Transport Bill which have been welcomed by the Standing Committee. We are considering carefully other points raised by hon. Members in Committee.

Mr. Costain

Would the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Minister is enthusiastic about the use of waterways for recreation? Will he take further note of the representations made to him to improve these facilities?

Mr. Carmichael

For the first time, I think, a Government have recognised the greater part which the inland waterways can play in giving amenities in a crowded island like ours. The Bill embodies a realistic appreciation of what can be done with the waterways and how they can be used. It is a very helpful part of the Bill, which should be welcomed by all.