Clause 90 (Hansard, 29 May 1968)

§ Mr. John Nott (St. Ives)
I beg to move Amendment No. 532, in page 116, line 39, at end insert: (4) This Part of this Act shall not apply where it is shown to the satisfaction of the Minister that a goods vehicle is normally situated in an employment district that lies more than ten hours by road from an urban conurbation and market of one million or more persons.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I suggest that it would be for the convenience of the House to discuss also Amendment No. 533, to Clause 91, on page 116, page 43, leave out ' nine ' and insert ' eleven '.

§ Mr. Nott
The Amendments are concerned with drivers hours and, in particular, with the effect of the reduction from eleven hours to nine hours—as it stands in the Bill—and 10 hours if the Government Amendment is carried. I am concerned with the effect which the Amendments will have on the livelihood and prosperity of those in parts of the country which lie more than ten driving hours away from their principal markets. I welcome the concession that the Minister is likely to make in the Government Amendment which will be moved shortly. The increase from nine to 10 hours is a concession which we are all very pleased to have.

§ Mr. Bessell
The hon. Member will notice that the Amendment which is to be moved by the Government is one which his hon. Friends and I pressed for in Committee and proposed in the Amendment in my name.

§ Mr. Nott
I am aware that my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) have done a sterling job in Committee, and many of the concessions which we have achieved we owe to my hon. Friends. Nevertheless, I do not wish to detract from my gratitude to the Minister for accepting the arguments for the increase from nine to ten hours.
I want to point out to him that the increase does not go quite far enough for some industries in the part of the country with which I am concerned. If the Minister has included in Clause 91 the ability 1888 to be able to modify subsection (1) of Clause 91 as well as modifying subsections (2) to (8), I would be partially satisfied. In the Bill as it stands, the Minister has powers to modify subsec-sections (2) to (8) of Clause 91, but has not taken powers to modify subsection (1) which is concerned with the amount of driving time that a driver may spend at the wheel.
I will illustrate my concern about drivers' hours by reference to a case in my constituency. The best example I can take is the fishing industry in Newlyn. It is the largest port in the South-West for landing fish, and it lies approximately 11 hours from the principal market, which is Billingsgate. The South-West, and Cornwall, in particular, are areas with an exceptionally high unemployment rate running into 7 per cent. at some times in the year. It is an area of very low incomes and an area which depends very much on the prosperity of the fishing industry. There are more than 1,000 people directly and indirectly employed in the fishing industry in the development area of Cornwall.
We are particularly concerned about the quantity licensing provision for the reason that the railways have done great damage to the fishing industry in Cornwall in the past by, with considerable fickleness, using their monopolistic position to vary freight rates on the railways by substantial amounts without warning. The fishing industry and its markets in the north and the Midlands were virtually eliminated when the railways raised their fish rates by 50 per cent. one day in 1965.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. We are not talking about freight rates in this Amendment.

§ Mr. Nott
I was trying to illustrate the concern we have for this industry in the sense that it has had difficulty in the past which will be increased by the drivers' hours provision.
The fishing industry and the broccoli industry, in my constituency, survive and are competitive only because it is possible to get fresh mackerel, other fish and fresh vegetables to the morning markets, and particularly to Billingsgate, by a system of refrigerated lorries. It would not be possible for the fish to be transported by rail for the reason that at the 1889 present time rail rates are up 300 per cent. more than the cost of getting fresh fish to market by refrigerated lorry. It costs approximately Is. Id. per stone at the moment to get fish by road from Newlyn to Billingsgate, whereas on the railway, taking into account the additional costs of returned empties and the losses which constantly occur, the cost of getting, fish to the market is about 3s. per stone. This is a substantial difference.
If drivers' hours are fixed at 10, and there is no way in which the fishing industry can get its produce to Billingsgate Market by the next morning, at the present cost of transportation, then I think that it is not an exaggeration to say that the fishing industry in West Cornwall will be seriously damaged. This is a matter of very great concern to the people in my constituency.
The Ministry answer the objections which we make to these drivers' hours provisions by saying, "Yes, but there is substantial room for an increase in productivity in this industry, and this would substantially offset the increased costs which would come about from the decrease in drivers' hours." But with respect, any increase in productivity which might come about in the industry cannot possibly offset the additional costs of having to have a second driver for what in practice would amount to one extra hour's driving.
I appeal to the Minister to recognise our concern. We are 11 hours by road from the only market for one of the principal industries in Cornwall. It is not possible for the industry to send its goods by rail, because the freight charges are up to 300 per cent. more expensive. If the provision regarding drivers' hours remain at the proposed limit of 10, the Cornish fishing industry does not know how it will face the future.
I do not want to press my Amendment to a Division. I hope that the Minister will consider the possibility, perhaps in another place, of including subsection (1) in his powers of modification. If he does that, we will be able to give him specific examples of how the Cornish fishing industry will run into substantial difficulties without the required extension of drivers' hours.
The Minister may say that he knows of our special problems, that we are 1890 11 hours away from the only market for our fish, but that the Government are thinking of safety and that it is not safe for a man to drive more than 10 hours a day. However, there are special circumstances here in that these drivers only work for 11 hours a day, whereas there are provisions in Clause 91 for a longer working day as long as a driver is at the wheel for only nine or 10 hours.
What happens at Newlyn is that a driver picks up his loaded refrigerated van and drives to Billingsgate, where someone else takes over. He goes off for a rest, and he drives back to Newlyn the next day. In other words, the 11 hours' driving is his working day. We would be perfectly happy with 11 hours' driving time and a working day of 11¼ hours; that would meet the point, because the drivers do nothing else but drive.
If the Minister would include the power to modify drivers' hours to meet special circumstances, which would mean adding in subsection (1) to his powers of modification to subsections (2) to (8), we would be perfectly happy. From the moment that the Bill becomes law, we fear that the Minister will be unable to consider these special cases—

§ Mr. Manuel
The hon. Gentleman is dealing with the provisions of Clause 91. If he looks at subsection (9), he will see that the Minister has powers to deal with exceptional circumstances and that, under paragraph (a), he may create exemptions from all or any of the requirements of subsections (1) to (5) of this section in such cases and subject to such conditions as may be specified in the regulations ".

§ Mr. Nott
The Minister has an Amendment down to subsection (9). When we come to debate it, I hope that he will give an assurance that he will have power to consider special cases like the one that I have mentioned. On the present wording, to be used in cases of emergency or in exceptional circumstances it may be thought that the Minister will not be able to vary the working day of a driver for the reasons that I have described. In fact, I tabled an Amendment to the subsection to try and cover the hon. Gentleman's point.
As I have said, I have no wish to force the Amendment to a Division, if 1891 the House, subsequently, gives me leave to withdraw it. However, I hope that the Minister will explain how he can overcome the problem, because it is very serious for one of the most important industries in my constituency.

§ Mr. Leslie Huckfield
The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) has made some astonishing assertions, the least of which is that every driver who drives to Billingsgate from Cornwall is working only for 11 hours. If I could be satisfied that a Cornish lorry driver was working the sort of day that he has suggested, I would have more sympathy for his argument. However, I suspect that what tends to happen in quite a few cases is that, before picking up his lorry, he does a certain amount of work in connection with the lorry, just as he does after he gets to Billingsgate. In other words, I rather think that the working day is somewhat longer than he suggests.
I was even more surprised to hear him advocate a working day which is a quarter of an hour longer than at present. The regulation was laid down in 1933 in the Road Traffic Act, and now the hon. Gentleman wants to lengthen the working day by a quarter of an hour—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] That is what the hon. Gentleman has just advocated. I appreciate that the Cornish fishing trade has problems, not the least of which is that the bulk of drivers on this run will spend most of their working day at the wheel. These are the types of drivers who will be most affected by the proposed cut-down in drivers' hours.
Many drivers will be driving for less than the maximum working day under the present rules and regulations. With the bulk of them working for 11 hours, but only driving for eight, nine or 10, they will not be affected all that much by the new rules, and the proposed system will merely clarify the existing provision.
The hon. Gentleman has something of a point. At the same time, it is fantastic to argue that the whole of an industry's future depends upon the ability of a man to drive more than 10 hours; in other words, working far more hours per week than the average factory or mine worker in my constituency.
1892 The hon. Gentleman has told the House what usually happens. He says that a lorry driver comes from Newlyn to Billingsgate, takes his rest break, I hope, and goes back to Newlyn the following day. My suspicion is that, on the day after that, he will be up to Billingsgate again. The present modus operandi is such that he works something like a 55-hour week, which is far in excess of the average working week. It is fantastic to suggest that the whole industry depends on a working week of that length.

§ Mr. Geoffrey Wilson (Truro)
I wish to support the Amendment, because it draws attention to another case which arises out of the peculiar geographical situation of Cornwall.
In a previous debate, I pointed out that Cornwall is a long, narrow county. On that occasion, I remarked that Exeter was half-way to Penzance. The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) challenged that statement. I have checked the distances in the Library, and I find that what I said was substantially correct. The rail distance from Paddington to Exeter is 133¼ miles, and from Exeter to Penzance it is 132½ miles.

§ Mr. Leslie Huckfield
If the hon. Gentleman checks the A.A. guide, which is also in the Library, he will find that Penzance is 281 miles and Exeter is 169 miles. I hardly think that that justifies his assertion that Exeter is half way to Penzance.

§ Mr. Speaker
I think that we should come to the Amendment now.

§ Mr. Wilson
The point I wish to make is that there are serious difficulties, not only in the fishing industry but in the agricultural industry, about these drivers' hours. They are competing with other areas which are much nearer to their markets. I am told that, so far as the people dealing with the new potatoes and broccoli are concerned, under the present law they can deliver in an area which includes Birmingham and London with a population of about 20 million. But under the Bill as originally drafted they would be limited to Bristol and Southampton, which would be an area with a population of 2 million.
1893 That claim was made in the Bill as drafted and there has since been some modification. But it is true that owing to the geographical situation of Covent Garden if there are two drivers the cost of transport of a number of these commodities will go up substantially and they will be out of the market.
The hon. Gentleman has assumed that these drivers work all the year, week in and week out, on these runs, but that is not the case, certainly not for the fish people, whose trade is certainly not every day of the week. For broccoli and new potatoes it is very seasonal; they are in season only at certain times of the year for certain periods. We are asking that arrangements should be made with the Minister to deal with special cases in exceptional circumstances over a short period, otherwise these industries will be seriously affected.

§ Mr. Leslie Huckfield
Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that other road hauliers from other parts of the country, because of the present hours' regulations, have made arrangements for shipment from other depots just outside London? I could quote the case of a haulier who, between St. Albans and Watford, hands over to a second driver at Watford to fit in with the hours. This kind of thing can be done by the fishing industry.

§ Mr. Wilson
If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that Billingsgate should be put somewhere outside London he just does not know the fish trade; and the same applies to Covent Garden. We know there is a proposal to put it at Nine Elms, which would certainly make it more convenient for the rail delivery.
These hauliers are mostly small people —I am not talking about fish; the fishing industry is very largely in the hands of one firm at Newlyn, dealing with refrigerated lorries, special occasions. The horticultural industry is in the hands of small men, very often the owners of the farms themselves, running two or three lorries. If they have to employ a second driver they are out of the market. It is a serious matter for them.
I hope that the Minister will try to find a way round this difficulty; otherwise, those particular forms of produce will not be on sale in the conurbations in the centre of England or in London. 1894 They will not get there, because they would not be competitive, and they will not be able to have their market at all.

§ Mr. Peter Mills
I support my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) in this Amendment; he put the case very well. We have particular problems in the South-West. I do not say that they are unique, but they certainly are real problems to us, with our high unemployment and the difficulties of communications. This means a bigger effort for us to compete in the markets. This is my answer to the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield). Both management and men have to do that little bit more to compete in the market these days. This business of drivers' hours is of considerable concern both to the men whose pockets will be affected and to the management and the running of these transport companies. I believe that the whole profitability is on a knife-edge.

§ Mr. Mills
It is no good the hon. Member opposite shaking his head. With our difficulties the question whether we are successful or not rests on a knife-edge.
All that my hon. Friend has said about fish is equally true, more so, of the total tonnage of meat that is going from the South-West. Vast quantities of meat are now being transported by road in special refrigerated lorries. This means that the meat has to be moved quickly from the South-West to the great conurbations. It is important that these drivers should make that little extra effort; and they are willing to do it. It is not a question of working five or six days a week. When killings are taking place in the meat trade they may be driving for only four nights and then they have finished their work. It is certainly not true, as far as I know. I know of a very big slaughterhouse. The men who run this meat trade—

§ Mr. Mills
No, I am not giving way to you. The hon. Member is always interrupting. Let him sit and listen, as I did.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Hon. Members who are listened to in courtesy might extend the same courtesy to others.

§ Mr. Mills
Mr. Speaker, I apologise but I was a little carried away. These interruptions are so constant.
The whole of the business of the profitability of the transport of our produce, meat and other things, is on a knife-edge. The difference between being profitable or not means that that little extra effort has to be made. To have another man engaged as a second driver would probably price us out of the market for many of these commodities. Though my hon. Friend's Amendment may not be the answer—I am not saying that we are right on this—I am saying that this is the sort of point that wants to be looked at very carefully, because it is the difference between profitability or not and between selling our produce or not. I would, therefore, ask the Minister to look very carefully at this point we have raised. It is a valid point. I admit that we may not be right, but at least the Minister ought to consider it and understand the difficulties we have in the South-West.

§ Mr. Manuel
We know the difficulties of hon. Members opposite and that it is a question of profitability. But, of course, these arguments are age-old arguments. These are the very same arguments used when children were employed in the pits.

§ Mr. Mills
That may be so, but I am saying that we have these difficulties; and now we are having more and more legislation, a whole series of legislation, which is adding to the burden and may very well mean we are just not viable in the future.
The Minister ought to consider not only the South-West—it would be quite wrong for me only to speak on behalf of that region—but all the remoter areas which are on a knife-edge, whether they are profitable or not, and whether we can sell our produce. I hope that when he does so he will take into account the difficulties that not only farmers, but all who are engaged in this way in the South-West find in making their businesses viable.

§ Mr. Bessell
I intend to intervene only briefly. It would be less than courteous if I did not at this stage say that I am gratified to find the Minister's name above mine attached to Amendment No. 323. 1896 When he made the statement in Committee about temporary revision of this provision so that the working day would be increased from nine to 10 hours, I asked him whether he would be able to accept my Amendment. He could not at that stage say that he could do so. I am glad that he has met the point I made by this compromise.
Grateful as I am for this, and although I am sure that the Minister is right so far as this concerns urban conurbations, there is a difference in Cornwall, the Highlands and other parts of Scotland. My hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) will deal with this matter on a further Amendment.
I take the opportunity of acknowledging the flexibility which the Minister has shown in this matter. Even though this may be only temporary and eventually he may introduce legislation to bring the limit back to nine hours, for the time being this will considerably help industry. Because of the imaginative way in which he has approached this part of the Bill, it will be most acceptable.

§ The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon)
I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) that although these Amendments may not be the right ones it is very important that this point should be looked into. We are discussing the question of the tired driver being a menace not only to himself, but to others. We are talking about realistic limits on his hours and the way in which we should improve on the position which was laid down nearly 40 years ago. That has to be weighed in the balance against the arguments we have heard so far. Amendment No. 532 is concerned, not with fish—

§ Mr. Keith Stainton (Sudbury and Woodbridge)
Will the hon. Gentleman enlarge on the fatigue factor and give some statistics?

§ Dr. Mabon
Not at this stage, because I want to stick strictly to the Amendments. I thought that we agreed on both sides of the House—I did not notice any dissenting voice—with the revised proposals that the Minister is to introduce, which can be changed to the original proposals made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity. I thought that 1897 we were all agreed that there should be some revision of the law and that we should try to get it out of productivity. In long-distance haulage there is the greatest scope for achieving better productivity without, at the same time, increasing costs. This is the purpose of the exercise. I agree that it is easier said than done, but I thought that this was common ground between us.
Amendment No. 532 is a bad Amendment. It does not define what is meant by "ten hours by road". The Amendment would not put the position back to what it was 40 years ago, but retrogressively it would go back beyond 1930. When we look at the question of competitors in Europe we see that when proposing a revision of these hours it would make our position absurd if we adopted this Amendment. I do not think that the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) has thought this matter through. I am not trying to be offensive, but pointing out that Amendment No. 532 would do something which I am sure its sponsor never intended—going back beyond 1930.
Not only lorries carrying fish, but all lorries in the area would be exempt. It is not justifiable that all the lorries in one area should be exempt because a particular industry should be exempt. I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Geoffrey Wilson) about the ferrying of broccoli to the markets in London. I appreciate that that is a different matter from the carrying of fish. That is why the Minister was very anxious that we should look into this matter. In Committee, we thought we had dealt with it when we accepted an earlier Amendment. Without breaching order, I refer to the Government Amendment No. 346, which seeks to amend subsection (9) of the Clause. That is where we should argue these particular cases rather than on subsection (1) as the hon. Member for St. Ives suggested.
6.45 p.m.
We take the point that there are problems in Cornwall, Devon, the Highlands and elsewhere, but we should have room statutorily to make adjustments for supply needs without doing damage to the general objective of this whole exercise, with which I am sure all hon. Members agree. Amendment No. 533 does offence even to the 1930 Regulations. I earnestly 1898 entreat the hon. Member for St. Ives not to insist on that Amendment, but to help us to get the Government Amendment No. 346 put into the Bill so that the Minister can look afresh at the problems not only concerning fish, but broccoli, and many other commodities.

§ Mr. Leslie Huckfield
Is my hon. Friend aware that the 1965–66 annual report of the Western Traffic Area Licensing Authority gives the rather shocking figure of 44 per cent. total convictions in the Western area concerned with drivers' hours?

§ Dr. Mabon
I am obliged to my hon. Friend. I am sure that figure must impress hon. Members opposite. They do not wish to be parties to this. Tired drivers are dangerous drivers and we must pay reasonable attention to the proposals in the Bill.

§ Mr. Stainton
The hon. Member is drawing precisely the wrong conclusion from the statistics. There is no correlation between offences and drivers' hours and accidents. They are purely and straightforwardly offences.

§ Dr. Mabon
I shall not argue that now. I do not think that there is dissent on either side of the House that these Amendments seek to establish the case for specific hauliers in specific industries. That should be done by amending subsection (9), not by incorporating these Amendments. The Amendments would do considerable damage to the present achievements with reference to drivers' hours. They would put us far behind the rest of Europe and turn the clock back over 40 years. I am sure that is not what the authors of the Amendment intend. Perhaps the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stain-ton) will leave the argument he put forward until later, when, no doubt, the Minister will deal with it.

§ Mr. Edward M. Taylor (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Hon. Members on both sides of the House will have been a little surprised to hear the Minister of State advocating rejection of Amendment No. 533 on the basis that it would be unreasonable for any man to be at the wheel for more than 10 hours. Bearing in mind that we considered this matter for many hours in Committee, and have considered it at length today—

§ The Minister of Transport (Mr. Richard Marsh)
Would the hon. Member suggest that the performance of the Opposition today is something which we should enlarge upon elsewhere?

§ Mr. Taylor
1 think that the performance of the Opposition has shown that we can cope with such a situation, although I would not say the same about the Government.

§ Mr. Speaker
Will the hon. Member now come to the Amendment?

§ Mr. Taylor
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) pointed out how the Clause as drafted could affect important industries which are concerned with perishable goods and are vital to his constituency, and other industries which are highly competitive. My hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) pointed out that it affects not only the transport of broccoli, but of fish and other commodities. He will have been very glad to hear the Minister say that to meet this kind of special situation the Government have tabled an Amendment which we shall consider later. Many of us wonder about the extent of the Amendment, and we are glad to hear that to meet this kind of situation the Government have drafted an Amendment to meet "a special need".
My hon. Friends have pointed out that a special need is concerned here. The broccoli and fish industries are concerned in getting goods to market in a short time, and other hon. Members could quote many identical cases. The Minister will be aware of an exactly similar situation which arose with a firm in Kilmarnock, engaged in carrying vegetable oil and similar goods from Hull. However, my hon. Friend will be to some extent relieved to hear that to meet this kind of situation the Government have tabled an Amendment. Bearing in mind what my hon. Friend said at the beginning of his excellent speech, in these circumstances he may well be satisfied with the assurances that we have had.

§ Mr. Nott
I was very happy that the Minister answered these Amendments in the way he did. He has shown some appreciation of the problems and, if I may say so without presumption, he has shown some humility, which is sadly lacking in 1900 the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield), who knows so much more about everyone else's problems than they do themselves that it really becomes tiresome.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. We are not discussing the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield).

§ Mr. Nott
On the assurance of the Minister that Government Amendment No. 346, which we shall not have time to discuss under the Guillotine, will enable the special problems of, for example, broccoli and fish transport, to be considered as special cases, I do not wish to press both Amendments. I do not pretend to be a Parliamentary draftsman and will accept that the first Amendment was not well drafted.

§ Mr. Speaker
It is proposed that the Amendment before us, Amendment No. 532, be withdrawn. This is purely a technical correction.