Clause 91

HC Deb 29 May 1968 vol 765 cc1900-38

PERMITTED DRIVING TIME AND PERIODS OFDUTY

Mr. Marsh

I beg to move Amendment No. 323, in page 116, line 43, leave out 'nine' and insert 'ten'.

Mr. Speaker

With the Amendment we may discuss the Amendment to it, in the name of the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott), after 'ten', insert 'and three quarter'.

Mr. Marsh

I am anxious to maintain the happy atmosphere. As the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) said, this was his Amendment. One of the difficulties of being a Minister is that after listening to the debates in Committee, as I have learned in the last few weeks, the biggest crime one can commit is then to put down Amendments designed to meet some of the points raised. One does not get this criticism from the hon. Gentleman, who is outstanding in his reasonableness in these matters. This is one of a number of Amendments put down to meet points fairly raised during the debate.

One point raised in Committee was the very real problem involved in a reduction of drivers' hours. This has faced us with two problems. On the one hand it is inconceivable that we could maintain this reduction without a degree of increased productivity that would pay, at least in part, for this reduction. The load on industry would be very considerable without this increased productivity. On the other hand, that being so, I came to the conclusion that this would put off the date by which we would get the reduction in hours which we all want. It therefore seemed reasonable to take this in two parts and to first move to 10 hours and subsequently move to nine hours.

I was surprised to learn of some reluctance or some doubts about the wisdom of even this initial reduction. We are dealing here not with motor cars but with heavy vehicles of 16 tons. As a motorist who had never driven a lorry I tended to think of driving lorries in much the same way as one drives motor cars. Only recently I had the opportunity of travelling in one of these vehicles, and I do not think that anyone who has travelled in a 16-ton lorry can be unconscious of the fact that it is a very different proposition from driving a comfortable, smooth, relatively small car. It is hard work: I sat next to a man whom I admired intensely, who was manipulating no fewer than 10 gears. There was a great deal of vibration and discomfort.

Drivers obviously get used to this sort of thing, but I cannot believe that one can argue that a man who is driving a vehicle of that type for 10 hours has not done a pretty solid day's work. I am well aware that the reductions in hours are not universally welcomed by drivers themselves, and one can appreciate the reasons. But to have a man on the road with that type of vehicle for a period much in excess of 10 hours is not something which many of us would wish to encourage.

We have heard a great deal today about the problems of the fishing industry and about various parts of the country; and no doubt there are problems presented by this change. All change produces problems. This is one of the great difficulties faced by the whole nation. We are, as a nation, unanimously in favour of change provided that we can all get written guarantees that it will not affect us personally but some other chap. We are in favour of reducing a driver's hours, provided it does not cause us difficulties.

On the Continent there are European limits laid down in the draft E.E.C. regulations. At present they are talking of reducing the number of hours to nine, and French fish must be the same as English fish—and probably Scottish fish too.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor

Does the Minister agree that the Common Market regulations allow for two days of longer duration?

Mr. Marsh

They allow for two days of longer duration, with a total of 10 hours, which is the proposal before us at present. We are talking of bringing our thinking into line with that of the Continent, and, if the Germans, the French and everyone else are thinking in this direction, although there may be arguments about whether we want to do it, I cannot really believe it is impossible for us to do it.

The hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) fairly asked if there is really a correlation between dangerous driving, or danger in vehicles, and the number of hours. This argument derives from considerable research, on which I am not qualified to comment, but it is argued that there is a direct relation between fatigue and slower reaction times; and if the reaction times of the man driving a 16-ton lorry are at all slowed down at the end of a 10-hour day, we must try to overcome this menace. This will produce difficulties. We are changing the system. People are going to have to operate their industries in some cases in different ways.

Reference has been made to subsequent Amendments dealing with the provision for making exemptions. In all fairness I do not see these exceptions being used on a massive scale because there would be no purpose in having the regulations on the hours at all; but certainly there is provision, in the light of experience, for us to see where defined classes could if necessary be exempted. I firmly believe that a nine-hour driving day—and this is driving time—at the wheel of vehicles of such size is a desirable thing for Parliament to impose on the industry. It cannot be achieved in one jump, and therefore we are doing it in two stages. The first stage is to ensure that the hours are reduced to 10, and to have discussions with the industry and the unions.

7.0 p.m.

There is increased productivity to be obtained in the industry, as we all know. It is not as easy to find as is sometimes suggested, and the ease of obtaining productivity deals tends to be a little oversimplified. I think that the provision is in the interests of the industry and the drivers, and I am convinced that it is in the interests of the mass of the public travelling on roads in company with vehicles of this sort. Therefore, we intend to reduce the hours to 10, when we have had discussions on how this can be achieved, and to take powers to make a further reduction to nine hours at some time in the future.

We must start from the acceptance that this involves difficulties for industry. It would be absurd to pretend that it did not. It means that people will have to adopt different working practices. There will be some inconvenience and probably some additional costs, though one hopes that this can be overcome with the co-operation of the men and the industry. But when we have looked at the evidence, not only in our country but in others, when we return to the point which I stressed, that we are talking about vehicles of 16 tons and above, I cannot believe that the House would think that a 10-hour driving day in one of those vehicles is not sufficient in terms of road safety.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor

As the Minister said, the Amendment shows a major concession compared with the original Bill. We pressed for it in Committee, together with the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell), and we are glad to see it.

As far as I can see there has been very little research on the question of fatigue in driving. The only real paper studying the question in depth seems to have been an article, "Fatigue in Driving", in a magazine called Ergonomics published way back in 1961. The Geddes Report on carriers' licensing pointed out that one of the real problems was that existing statutory limits were often disregarded. It said that one of the major contributions we could make was a tightening up. As the Minister said, if the original proposal had gone forward a substantial increase in costs would have resulted. The Wiggins Teape pulp and paper mill, in which the Minister of State has a very real interest, estimated that the extra cost to it of the proposals could be about 14.9 per cent. The concession will reduce that.

We are concerned with the effect of the new proposals on drivers' earnings. The previous Minister said several times that she would not be satisfied unless drivers' wages were protected when hours of work were reduced. The Government said in the last page of the White Paper, The Transport of Freight: Increased productivity will be the key factor and evidence of real progress towards this objective by both sides of the industry will be essential before the enabling powers are used to bring the new law into effect. Could the Minister tell us what progress has been made and the extent to which progress is possible?

My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) mentioned in the debate on the previous Amendment the problem of a fast run from Cornwall to London. It seems that in many instances the scope for increased productivity is not in the hands of the drivers. Many of the difficulties are congestion on the roads holdups at docks, and deliveries of goods to customers, none of which the driver can control.

Therefore it seems that in some cases there is not a great deal of scope for increased productivity, apart from faster driving. Would this be an effective contribution to the safety which the Minister said that he is aiming at? If there is a productivity agreement which allows for faster driving I wonder if this will be a real contribution to tackling the problem of fatigue which he has in mind.

Is it still the Minister's intention, as it was of the previous Minister, that drivers' wages should be protected when the changeover takes place? What progress has been made in this direction?

Mr. Stainton

I wholeheartedly accept the reduction in drivers' hours from 11 to 10. Whilst I intervened when the Minister of State, Scottish Office was speaking to question whether he had statistics on fatigue, I do not think that statistics are called for to justify the reduction from 11 to 10. Ordinary observation is sufficient to justify it. But beyond that point there will be a very heavy onus on the Government to show that there is a correlation that would demand a further reduction, because there are very rapid improvements in the layout and comfort of driver's cabs and facilities in vehicles, and all these factors must be borne in mind.

The Minister rather misunderstood what I said in an intervention about the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield). The hon. Gentleman quoted some traffic offences figures and the Minister appears to have understood the offences to have been dangerous driving. I understood them to have been offences in the broad and, rightly or wrongly, to have been largely to do with the non-observance of driving hours. I was trying to make the point that there was no necessary correlation between that statistic and what the Minister of State was trying to say. I hope that the Minister will not persist in holding this against me in terms of my attitude towards driving hours.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill

The Minister has said that the change proposed would be only a temporary alteration, and that he hopes eventually to make the reduction to nine hours. I could not take part in the debate on the earlier Amendment, but I should like to mention the case of a region like Norfolk, most of which is situated 100 miles from its main markets. As a result, the normal day's journey— one might almost say the classic Norfolk journey—would be to go probably to London and complete the return trip with a back load in one day. That enables the vehicles to be well used and the driver to return home, and provides a very economic use of transport.

The difficulty is that it may become impossible to do that in a nine-hour driving day. It would almost certainly be impossible, depending on traffic conditions, and even with 10 hours it would be difficult where perhaps there must be several points of pick-up or delivery.

Fatigue has been mentioned as a cause of accidents. Equally, impatience can be a very great cause. Let us not under- estimate the drivers' desire to end up at home after the day's work. The drivers feel strongly about this, as evidenced by the fact that one firm can get only one driver to say that he will definitely sleep away from home if the routine must be changed, and that is because he can stay with friends. I hope that the Minister will take that point seriously.

Much else could be argued, such as all the matters of cost. I hope that the Minister will really consider these points.

Mr. Ron Lewis (Carlisle)

I shall not detain the House for more than a few moments, but I certainly welcome this Clause if it will help us in obtaining a better standard of road safety. The reduction of hours from 11 to 10, and eventually to nine, is a good thing.

Speaking as one who does a considerable amount of driving, I find that tiredness is a factor contributory to some accidents. I suppose that most of us have had occasion to pull up on the side of the road because tiredness has overtaken us, and found that after five minutes' rest we feel we can go on. On the other hand, I can understand the action of a driver who, though he is tired, because he is also anxious to get home, will not do that, but will take the risk of driving on. Sometimes he will get away with it and sometimes he may not.

My only fear arises from a possibility which was brought to my attention by drivers employed in road haulage. Many of them, and even their wives and families, have a very great fear that a reduction in the hours may mean a reduction in the drivers' pay. Is there to be a reduction in their pay? They do not want an "Irishman's rise" as a result of the Bill. I can only hope that my right hon. Friend will do his utmost, when this Clause becomes law, to ensure that every effort will be made to see that the drivers will not, as a result, suffer a reduction in their pay. I hope that my right hon. Friend, with the industry, will ensure that there will be no "Irishman's rise" for the workers in the industry.

Sir Harmar Nicholls (Peterborough)

I think that we would all agree that to reduce the hours to 10 is a good thing, but we cannot disregard the point made by the Minister himself, that this will inevitably put up costs, and at a time when we have to be competitive and it is essential that we should be competitive to keep our markets. It is within the Government's power to help, through the Selective Employment Tax and Excise duties, to minimise the increased costs.

Mr Marsh

I am not sure how far, Mr Speaker, you would allow me to reply to the last few comments.

Mr. Speaker

Not at all.

Mr. Marsh

I rather thought not.

Although this has been a short debate it has been a very good one and has shown a degree of acceptance by both sides of the public need. We really must go back to the question: what is this exercise about? If it is agreed—and I think that most hon. Members do agree —that driving lorries more than 10 hours a day is undesirable, then we have to accept the consequences which flow from that. The only way to meet the point is to accept that drivers shall drive those vehicles for not longer periods than those we are suggesting here.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill

Or make better roads into London.

Mr. Marsh

All right, but everybody has his own demands for road improvements. At the moment, and for some time to come, many of them will be concentrated on South-East London and Greenwich. But given the road system as it is, given all these problems, once we accept that we need this reduction in hours then consequences follow which I am not going to minimise.

The hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls), in the short part of his observation that was in order, said that this involves additional cost. How much, we do not know, but one estimate I saw, if the hours were reduced to nine, and if there were no increase in productivity, was between £20 and £30 million, an enormous sum. But I talked with the unions, I talked with the employers, and both sides told me that there is scope for increased productivity and that both sides were concerned to achieve it. I cannot believe that if they get together they cannot find a way out of this difficulty.

These hours are to be reduced. I agree with everything my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Ron Lewis) said. Naturally, we want to preserve the earnings of the men, but the proposal requires from the unions a recognition that to preserve the earnings with reduced hours they will have to adopt different practices.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Ron Lewis

And the employers.

Mr. Marsh

I was coming on to them as well. As Minister of Transport one looks at employers and employees together and the job they have to do. But this is to happen and it is in the employers' and employees' interests that they find a way to minimise the cost of this proposal.

There is the question of fatigue, mentioned by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) and the medical evidence, which also he mentioned. It is a little strange that, with the only medically qualified member of the Government present beside me, I find myself dealing with this subject.

Mr. Peter Walker

Is he asleep?

Mr. Marsh

He is not asleep. He is thinking.

This study of fatigue is not of fatigue in driving vehicles; it has nothing to do with vehicles. All the medical evidence shows, from doing tests, that people's reaction times are slower when they are tired than when they are not tired. The evidence of this has been with us all day. If, therefore, we accept that driving a vehicle of this size for 10 hours is tiring, we accept that there is potential danger, and if we accept that there is potential danger then we accept that we have to reduce the number of hours; and if we reduce the number of hours we have to accept the consequences which flow from that.

This means reorganisation. It means new methods. It means that the drivers and the employers should get together to find new ways to maintain their incomes. I am not suggesting that it is an easy job. We in the Ministry will certainly give all the help we can to help the two sides to reach what agreement they can.

The one thing which has emerged from this debate is that, however much we may argue the difficulties, not one hon. Member dissents from the basic proposition that, if nothing else, what the Government are doing is right.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Speaker

The next Amendment is No. 324, with which are listed Amendments No. 325 and No. 326, dealing with Cornwall and Devon, Scotland, and the Highlands and Islands of Scotland.

Mr. John Pardoe (Cornwall, North)

The Amendments in this group are merely probing Amendments. We have discussed the whole of this issue, and I think that we had a reasonable response from the Government. Therefore, I will not move them.

Mr. Stainton

I beg to move Amendment No. 331, in page 117, line 14, to leave out 'or (c)' and to insert '(c) or (d)'.

Mr. Speaker

With this Amendment we can discuss Amendment No. 339, in page 117, line 31, at end insert: (d) if the driver is a company representative visiting customers' establishments and whose main employment is not driving, the working day shall not exceed fourteen hours.

Mr. Stainton

AmendmentNo. 331 paves the way for No. 339, Mr. Speaker, and it is upon the latter that I suggest that the attention of the House should be concentrated. The endeavour is to extend the provisos under subsection (3) of Clause 91 so as to let out commercial travellers who might be driving vehicles which would fall within the definition of goods vehicles under Clause 90(2)(b)(ii), which reads: motor vehicles (except those mentioned in paragraph (a) of this sub-section "— these are heavy locomotives and various other types of heavy vehicle— constructed or adapted to carry goods other than the effects of passengers. It is possible that this definition would embrace pick-ups or station wagons and the like.

It might strike the House that the more direct way of attacking this situation would have been to table an Amendment to the definition of vehicles and to exclude specifically the pick-up or station wagon type of vehicle about which I have been talking. That endeavour was made in Committee and turned down by the Government—most perversely, I thought —with the argument that, if one included commercial representatives and others who have to carry tools and equipment around with them in small vehicles which are probably not private cars, but similar to them, there would be a logical argument for extending driving hours restriction to all persons driving private cars. Rather than encounter another Scottish solecism, we have decided to tackle the manner in the form now put forward.

Amendment No. 339 would provide that, if a driver is a company representative visiting customers' establishments, and whose main employment is not driving, the working day shall not exceed 14 hours. Although my name is attached to the Amendment and I must, therefore, take full responsibility, I am not entirely proud of it. I make that point deliberately because I expect that part of the Government's reply will contain drafting objections. But I hope that we shall have the spirit of the exchange rather than the detail.

The Bill has still to run its course and there is plenty of time to take up any defects which may be detected in the form of wording. I am not happy about the reference to "company representative". What is that? One might say that it is a commercial traveller or a travelling man, or—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman must not amend his own Amendment.

Mr. Stainton

I was endeavouring to adduce arguments to identify the relative strength of the Amendment.

I was about to suggest that some hon. Members may think that there are other classes of persons, such as veterinary surgeons or farm managers or farm mechanics, who merit consideration on this basis. Having said that, I am prepared to rest my case at this stage on No. 339 as it stands, but despite my reservations about the wording I fully intend to ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to take the matter to a Division should the spirit of the suggestion not be acceptable to the Government.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Gentleman is quite right in saying that No. 331 is a paving Amendment to No. 339. I would allow a Division on No. 339 if requested.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson

I support the Amendment. The Clause deals with a larger class than commercial travellers. In Committee, in connection with another Amendment, I drew attention to a report by the Traders' Transport Association, published in October, 1959. The report was not considered enough in 1959. Nor has it been considered enough since. It contained a number of valuable pieces of information.

It was a survey of members organisations holding "C" licences. It asked why they held "C" licences. The survey published the percentages of reasons given as to why members of the Association chose forms of road transport rather than rail. One of the surprising disclosures was that 32 per cent. of those questioned said that they preferred to use road transport because they required their travellers to solicit orders and collect cash.

If a man is largely employed on that sort of occupation, it goes much further than the job of the commercial traveller as we commonly know him, and there must be a considerable number of drivers of vehicles spending a great deal of their time in soliciting orders and collecting cash. I take it that that sort of person would be covered by the Amendment. This point should be borne in mind. One is apt to assume that there is no connection between commercial travellers and the haulage industry, but there is a connection between persons employed to collect cash and solicit orders and drivers of all commercial vehicles.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill

I draw attention to the anomalies which may arise, unless an Amendment of this kind is accepted, in the case of people like farm fitters, not employed by farms but by agricultural engineers, who have to do a lot of servicing, and also in the case of anyone on a farm whose job is not normally that of driving. If such a person drives more than four hours in one day, which may easily happen, for the remainder of the week he becomes classified as a driver and his total working hours are controlled accordingly, so that he cannot carry on with his ordinary job.

Dr. Dickson Mabon

I hope that I shall restore the harmony which appears to have been breached by the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton), who threatened the Government with a vote if we did not respond in the spirit of his Amendment. I say first to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Geoffrey Wilson) that I am not sure whether or not these Amendments would cover the class of persons he spoke about. I think that the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge would agree that this kind of person should not be left uncovered by the Amendments, however. One has to be sure technically of what one is doing in an Amendment if it is to cover all the classes desired under the revised arrangements which my right hon. Friend has agreed to.

The hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge testified—that is the only word one can use—he witnessed to this assembly, his anxiety to be counted among those who favoured the reduction to 10 hours. He was one of the company who wanted the 10-hour change. If that is true, it means, under the revised rules, and taking the initial spread-over—12½ hours—that the commercial traveller or representative would be working from 8 a.m. to 8.30 p.m.

Mr. Stainton

That is not acceptable.

7.30 p.m.

Dr. Mabon

Then we part company. We will have a Division if that is the case. It seems to us that that is a perfectly reasonable proposition in the generality. I emphasise this, because it is a general Amendment not a specific one. The hon. Gentleman may say later that he did not mean it to be as general as this, but wanted it to be more specific, as did the hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill).

The hon. Gentleman's example can be covered by the previous discussion about amending subsection (9); and if we reach Government Amendment No. 346 we may discuss this further. There are specific cases that we could make exemption for under that subsection. But when we are arguing a general case, and I am treating this Amendment as a general case, and we are being asked to exempt a substantial class of people, it would be a major concession. The figure in 1959 for commercial representatives was 32 per cent., and this is a very large one.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson

The figure was 32 per cent. of those asked to make the return. All were "C" licence holders. It is not 32 per cent. of all vehicles on the road.

Dr. Mabon

I accept that, but it is a still substantial class. I am told that to meet the point of the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge would be a substantial concession. This would nullify the attempt by the Government to make drivers' hours sensible, even if the drivers concerned were only those who solicited orders and carried out other duties.

If we go to the second stage of the reduction in hours, it means that the same people could be working from 8 a.m. to 7 p.m., and within the generality, this is a perfectly sensible and sound proposal. We are trying to get the best possible situation between employer and employee. We are trying both not to upset arrangements, and, at the same time, make improvements. If we were to make a major change of the kind proposed here we would nullify this attempt to improve the circumstances of people, and to reduce danger on the road.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor

Everyone will be disappointed by the Minister's reply. He tried in some way to compare the man driving a very large lorry with the

man engaged in business, who, on particular days, might have to work for a long time. The Minister knows that a commercial traveller operating in the Highlands of Scotland may, on two days of the week, work for a longer period than usual to carry out his work. We have assured the Minister on the previous Amendment that we support the generality of the intention behind this part of the Bill, but if it is the Government's intention to impose these rules inflexibly then our co-operation may have been misplaced.

It is because we are concerned, because men engaged in business all over the country are concerned, about the dangers of an inflexible situation, and because they feel that flexibility by regulation-making is inadequate, that we will have to register our opinion by dividing. For technical reasons, I suppose that we will have to divide on Amendment No. 331.

Mr. Speaker

For procedural reasons the Amendment which we must divide on, if we are to divide, is No. 331.

Question put, That the Amendment be made: —

The House divided: Ayes 223, Noes 248.

Division No. 195.]	AYES	[7.36 p.m.
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)	Burden, F. A.	Fortescue, Tim
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)	Campbell, Gordon	Fatter, Sir John
Astor, John	Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert	Fraser. Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)
Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)	Cary, Sir Robert	Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Awdry, Daniel	Chichester-Clark, R.	Gibson-Watt, David
Baker, Kenneth (Acton)	Clark, Henry	Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)	Clegg, Walter	Glimour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Balniel, Lord	Cooke, Robert	Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Barber, Rt. Hn, Anthony	Cooper-Key, Sir Neill	Glyn, Sir Richard
Batsford, Brian	Corfield, F. V.	Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton	Costain, A. P.	Goodhart, Philip
Bell, Ronald	Crouch, David	Goodhew, Victor
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)	Crowder, F. P.	Gower, Raymond
Berry, Hn. Anthony	Cunningham, Sir Knox	Grant, Anthony
Beasel, Peter	Currie, G. B. H.	Gresham Cooke, R.
Bitten, John	Dalkeith, Earl of	Grieve, Percy
Biggs-Davison, John	Dance, James	Hall, John (Wycombe)
Black, Sir Cyril	Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)	Hall-Davit, A. G. F.
Blaker, Peter	Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)	Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)	Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)	Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Body, Richard	Digby, Simon Wingfield	Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Bossom, sir Cilve	Dodds-Parker, Douglas	Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John	Doughty, Charles	Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward	Drayson, G. B.	Harvie Anderson, Miss
Braine, Bernard	du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward	Hastings, Stephen
Brewis, John	Eden, Sir John	Hawkins, Paul
Brinton, Sir Tatton	Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)	Hay, John
Bromley-Davenport. Lt.-Col. Sir Walter	Elliott. R.W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)	Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)	Emery, Peter	Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Bruce-Gardyne, J.	Errington, Sir Eric	Heseltine, Michael
Bryan, Paul	Eyre, Reginald	Higgins, Terence L.
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N & M)	Farr, John	Hiley, Joseph
Buck, Antony (Colchester)	Fisher, Nigel	Hill, J. E. B.
Bullus, Sir Eric	Fletcher-Cooke, Charles	Holland, Philip
Hooson, Emlyn	Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)	Silvester, Frederick
Hordern, Peter	Monro, Hector	Sinclair, Sir George
Hornby, Richard	Montgomery, Fergus	Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)
Howell, David (Guildford)	Morrison, Charles (Devizes)	Smith, John (London & W'minster)
Hunt, John	Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles	Speed, Keith
Hutchison, Michael Clark	Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh	Stainton, Keith
Iremonger, T. L.	Murton, Oscar	Stodart, Anthony
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)	Neave, Airey	Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)	Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael	Tapsell, Peter
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)	Nott, John	Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)	Onslow, Cranley	Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)
Kaberry, Sir Donald	Orr, Capt. L. P. S.	Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Kerby, Capt. Henry	Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian	Teeling, Sir William
Kershaw, Anthony	Page, Graham (Crosby)	Temple, John M.
Kimball, Marcus	Page, John (Harrow, W.)	Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)	Pardoe, John	Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Kirk, Peter	Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)	Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Kitson, Timothy	peel, John	Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Knight, Mrs. Jill	Percival, Ian	Vickers, Dame Joan
Lambton, viscount	Peyton, John	Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.	pike, Miss Mervyn	Walker, Peter (Worcester)
Lane, David	Pink, R. Bonner	Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry	Pounder, Rafton	Wall, Patrick
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)	Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch	Weatherill, Bernard
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)	price, David (Eastleigh)	Webster, David
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)	Prior, J. M. L.	Wells, John (Maidstone)
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)	Pym, Francis	Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Lubbock, Eric	Quennell, Miss J. M.	Williams, Donald (Dudley)
McAdden, Sir Stephen	Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James	Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
MacArthur, Ian	Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy	Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David	Winstanley, Dr. M. P.
Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon	Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
McMaster, Stanley	Ridley, Hn. Nicholas	Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)	Ridsdale, Julian	Woodnutt, Mark
Maddan, Martin	Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)	Worsley, Marcus
Maginnis, John E.	Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)	Wylie, N. R.
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest	Russell, Sir Roland	Younger, Hn. George
Marten, Neil	St. John-Stevas, Norman
Maude, Angus	Scott, Nicholas	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Mawby, Ray	Scott-Hopkins, James	Mr. Jasper More and
Mills, Peter (Torrington)	Sharpies, Richard	Mr. Anthony Royle.
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)	Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
NOES
Abse, Leo	Concannon, J. D.	Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Albu, Austen	Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)	Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)	Foley, Maurice
Alldritt, Waiter	Crawshaw, Richard	Forrester, John
Allen, Scholefield	Cronin, John	Fowler, Gerry
Archer, Peter	Cullen, Mrs. Alice	Fraser, John (Norwood)
Armstrong, Ernest	Dalyell, Tam	Freeson, Reginald
Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)	Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)	Galpern, Sir Myer
Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice	Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)	Gardner, Tony
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)	Garrett, W. E.
Barnes, Michael	Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)	Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Bence, Cyril	Davies, Harold (Leek)	Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood	Davies, Ifor (Gower)	Gregory, Arnold
Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)	Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)	Grey, Charles (Durham)
Binns, John	de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey	Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Bishop, E. S.	Delargy, Hugh	Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Lianelly)
Blackburn, F.	Dell, Edmund	Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Blenkinsop, Arthur	Dempsey, James	Hamling, William
Boardman, H. (Leigh)	Dewar, Donald	Hannan, William
Booth, Albert	Diamond, Rt. Hn. John	Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Boyden, James	Dickens, James	Haseldine, Norman
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.	Dobson, Ray	Hattersley, Roy
Bradley, Tom	Doig, Peter	Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Brooks, Edwin	Driberg, Tom	Hooley, Frank
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.	Dunn, James A.	Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)	Dunnett, Jack	Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)	Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)	Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Buchan, Norman	Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)	Howie, W.
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)	Eadie, Alex	Hoy, James
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)	Edelman, Maurice	Huckfield, Leslie
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)	Edwards, Robert (Bilston)	Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James	Edwards, William (Merioneth)	Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Cant, R. B.	Ellis, John	Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Carmichael, Neil	Ennals, David	Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Carter-Jones, Lewis	Ensor, David	Hunter, Adam
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara	Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)	Hynd, John
Chapman, Donald	Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)	Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Coe, Denis	Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)	Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)
Coleman, Donald	Faulds, Andrew	Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

Janner, Sir Barnett	Mikardo, Ian	Shaw, Arnold (llford, s.)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)	Millan, Bruce	Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)	Miller, Dr. M. S.	Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)	Milne, Edward (Blyth)	Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)	Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)	Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W.Ham, S.)	Morgan, Elyetan (Cardiganshire)	Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)	Morris, Alfred (Wytheshawe)	Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)	Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)	Slater, Joseph
Judd, Frank	Morris, John (Aberavon)	Small, William
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)	Moyle, Roland	Snow, Julian
Lawson, George	Neal, Harold	Spriggs, Leslie
Ledger, Ron	Newens, Stan	Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael
Lee, John (Reading)	Norwood, Christopher	Stonehouse, John
Lector, Miss Joan	Ogden, Eric	Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)	O'Malley, Brian	Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Lomas, Kenneth	Orme, Stanley	Swain, Thomas
Loughlin, Charles	Oswald, Thomas	Swingler, Stephen
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)	Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)	Symonds, J. B.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)	Owen, Will (Morpeth)	Taverne, Dick
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson	Palmer, Arthur	Thomas, Rt. Hn. George
McBride, Neil	Park, Trevor	Thomson, Rt. Hn. George
McCann, John	Parker, John (Dagenham)	Thornton, Ernest
MacColl, James	Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)	Tinn, James
MacDermot, Niall	Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)	Urwin, T. W.
Macdonald, A. H.	Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred	Varley, Eric G.
McGuire, Michael	Pentland, Norman	Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret	Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)	Watkins, David (Consett)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)	Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)	Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)
Mackintosh, John P.	Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.	Wellbeloved, James
Maclennan, Robert	Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)	Whitlock, William
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)	Probert, Arthur	Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
McNamara, J. Kevin	Randall, Harry	Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
MacPherson, Malcolm	Rankin, John	Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)	Rees, Merlyn	Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)	Reynolds, G. W.	Willis, Rt. Hn. George
Mallalieu, J.P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)	Rhodes, Geoffrey	Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Manuel, Archie	Richard, Ivor	Winnick, David
Marks, Kenneth	Robertson, John (Paisley)	Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
Marquand, David	Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St.P'c'as)	Woof Robert
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard	Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)	Wyatt, Woodrow
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy	Rodgers, William (Stockton)	Yates, Victor
Maxwell, Robert	Roebuck, Roy
Mayhew, Christopher	Rose, Paul	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Mendelson, J. J.	Ross, Rt. Hn. William	Mr. Harry Gourlay and
		Mr. Joseph Harper.

Mr. Stainton

I beg to move Amendment No. 332. in page 117, line 15, leave out 'eleven' and insert 'twelve'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving)

With this Amendment it will be convenient to take Amendment No. 333, in page 117, line 15, at end insert: 'except in the case of a driver of a passenger vehicle who may work for fourteen hours if he is engaged in driving a passenger service vehicle for a distance in excess of one hundred and fifty miles provided he has twenty-four hours off duty within every seven days working week '.

Mr. Stainton

The objects behind these two Amendments are three-fold. The first is to ascertain somewhat more clearly what the Minister had in view when he addressed the Committee on 25th April. There were some obscurities in terms of the total spread and in terms of the Government's intentions. The Minister said: I propose also to take power to reduce the 11-hour basic requirement, so that at a later date it will be possible to reduce the 11-hour working day itself."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 25th April, 1968: c. 2861.] If these Amendments merely serve the purpose of throwing some light on that expression we shall be delighted.

The second objective is perhaps novel in terms of exchanges either in Committee or on the Floor of the House. I have no doubt that this must have crossed the Minister's mind in framing this legislation and bringing forward various Amendments. The Government are tackling the drivers' fatigue and the overall employment position under two separate headings: first, the driving hours, and secondly, the total span of the working day. There are rest periods and various other factors, but I think that one should concentrate upon these two points.

We heartily support the initial reduction from 11 to 10 hours in driving time. This was made clear in our early discussions on subsection (1) of the Clause. However, we suggest, if only to get the Minister's reaction, that we should move rather more slowly in terms of the reduction of the working day. We feel that this makes a lot of sense. More cautious movement in terms of the working day will not have the direct impact on fatigue and associated matters that driving hours has. Yet it will allow the operator some flexibility for the time being. This is not a plea that one should so drag one's feet on the total working day that, in the event, nothing is achieved. We are saying that, compared with the reduction in drivers' hours from 11 to 10—and we are grateful that it is 10, not 9, at this stage—we should move more slowly in terms of the total working day. I am sure that this will confer considerable additional flexibility on the transport operator.

There is enormous virtue in this suggestion. The word "flexibility" comes tripping off one's lips. Of itself it has no virtue, but we have to be flexible to cope with a variety of permutations constantly changing the transport world. I believe, however, that its content is even more profound in the context of productivity, about which the Minister was speaking. Much of the improvements in productivity are likely to come not so much on the loading and unloading as at either end, and while it is quite easy to demonstrate that one is opposed to reducing drivers' hours, if a man gets into the cab of a heavy vehicle in London and goes to Glasgow that will absorb his whole working day and he cannot go faster so that there is no improvement in productivity. We hear this kind of argument up and down the country, but it is a very partial one. The reality is what happens in regard to loading, unloading and turning round.

It is on this count that I would plead with the Minister to take heed of our proposals in terms of going more slowly on the working-day front than on the reduction in actual working hours at the wheel. If he will take heed of this I believe he will make more progress and can have a much more friendly and realistic impact, not just on the transport industry but on industry as a whole, which is bound up with transport. If he can talk in these terms he will make friends rather than enemies. We propose, therefore, that the 11 hours proposed for the working day should be increased to 12 and that the overall time should run from 12½ hours to 13 hours.

The third objective behind these two Amendments has particularly to do with public transport. I do not need to say much on that aspect because it was ventilated very fully in Committee. The Government Amendment which we are to discuss shortly, No. 344, has some impact on this situation, but if one can half assume it in one's mind we are still concerned with the impact which these proposals could have on the public transport situation.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) quoted in Committee, the Association of Chambers of Commerce pointed out that the manning of public bus services up and down the country is deficient by between 10 and 15 per cent. and that if the overall time span of 12½ hours proposed is adhered to this 10 to 15 per cent. is almost certain to become 15 to 20 per cent. This kind of evidence is eloquently supported in Report No. 50 of the Prices and Incomes Board on bus services and payment to bus drivers. This refers to Yorkshire-Humberside where there is a deficiency of no less than 15 per cent.; and I am informed, by quite independent advice—this is not from the Prices and Incomes Board report —that if the existing 14½ hours overrun is reduced to 12½ hours a further 283 drivers will be required in Birmingham at a cost of £320,000 a year. If a further 283 bus drivers are not recruited, this can only mean that at peak time those buses will not be operating on the roads.

For these three reasons I commend these two Amendments for the attention and support of the House.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield

Several accusations have been made about me this afternoon and, in particular, I have appeared to hon. Gentlemen opposite to know more about their constituency problems than they do. I would respectfully suggest that had the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) read the 1933 Road Traffic Act, he would certainly know more about it than he has shown the House he knows tonight; because instead of proposing to bring down the number of drivers' hours, he is actually putting forward a proposal for a working day one hour longer than the 1933 Act provided, which I find utterly fantastic coming from an hon. Member for whom many of my hon. Friends on this side of the House have great respect. I would hardly call it beneficial to employer or employee to come to the House and propose an increase in the number of drivers' hours when we are actually putting forward a proposal for a deduction of one hour on the 1933 Road Traffic Act. I suggest that before coming to the House in future the hon. Gentleman should at least read the appropriate Act.

Having looked at his spread-over proposals, I find myself more in sympathy with him on this point, because at the moment we have a 14-hour spread-over and under the new proposal of my right hon. Friend we shall in future have a spread-over of 12½ hours. I can appreciate the point which the hon. Gentleman has made, that because of the great amount of time that is spent up and down the country waiting at docks, warehouses, wholesale premises, power stations and elsewhere, there may be some need for a longer spread-over period. But as my right hon. Friend has said, it is in these particular sectors of a driver's day that we have the greatest scope for productivity increases. This is precisely why he has proposed to slow down the implementation of this reduction in the number of permitted drivers' hours.

I would suggest to the Eon. Gentleman that the arguments he has advanced against bringing down the spread-over period to 12½ hours are not all that watertight when we compare them with the facts of the situation; but I must admit that my own feeling on this whole question of drivers' hours leads me to favour having more flexibility. At the present time there is a terrific amount of flexibility simply because the present regulations of drivers' hours are not enforced. This in itself gives tremendous flexibility to any operator or driver who wants it. But we are told that in future we shall work on the basis of tachographs in the back of the cabin, driver's control books and increased roadside spot checks, and because of such things one can presume that the regulations will be more fairly enforced.

Mr. Stainton

They will come with a bang.

Mr. Huckfield

I am not quite sure that they will come with such a bang, because if we wanted to introduce the tachograph overnight the simple fact preventing that is that we have not enough clocks. But even when these new drivers' hours are enforced and even bearing in mind the concession which my right hon. Friend has gracefully made, I would have thought more flexibility was needed. I would prefer the American system which states that basically a driver is not allowed to drive for more than 10 hours after he has had eight hours rest; and he must not drive more than two hours after he has been more than 13 consecutive hours on duty. On duty time includes all other things, including having spent time in a sleeping berth on the vehicle. Sleeping berths on vehicles are not permitted in this country though they are in most European countries. I would have liked to have seen some study of such things by my right hon. Friend, because the point at which the hon. Gentleman is trying to get in these two Amendments is the basic problem we have in this country of the typical journey being just a little longer than the time allowed for one day but not really long enough for the time which will be allowed for two days.

As I see it, this is the basic problem we have always had with drivers in this country. We need a little longer time for the driver to work than he is permitted in one day as defined in the regulations. I would urge the hon. Gentleman to think again on his Amendment, because he is not bringing down the number of drivers' hours as defined by the working day but increasing them. I urge that he should look again at the spreadover period which he has suggested, because it is in the ancillary activities connected with driving that we find the greatest scope for increases in productivity.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor

The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) said that there are varying reactions to his speeches. The reason for some is that in Committee six of these eight important Clauses were not discussed at all because of the guillotine. Since we have only half an hour left, it seems that the same will happen now. It is because he has contributed a good deal on a subject in which he is greatly interested.

Having regard to the new Common Market draft regulations, could the Minister say whether the proposals in the Bill will conform with them? I understand that they do not and that my hon. Friend's suggestion is more in line with them. Would he bear in mind the special problems of certain isolated industries and commercial activities? An important case which was mentioned in Committee is that of the Electrical Sign Manufacturers Association, who transport electrical signs to shops and elsewhere and then return. Since driving is not a main part of their activity, they need a good spread-over. An important point is that the building industry, because of its seasonal activities and the fact that it works shorter days in the winter, works longer hours in summer. Will provision be made in the regulations for this important industry?

On municipal transport, there is a problem, in that the Minister is about to make an important concession to bring many matters into the same field as the concession already made for passenger transport. He should bear in mind the desperate situation, because of the shortage of drivers, for instance, which faces transport authorities. If the spread-over is introduced in this form, to provide the same services, some authorities would have to find more drivers, who may not be available. It is because we are looking for this flexibility that I hope that the Minister can give my hon. Friend the assurances which he wants.

Mr. Marsh

There is a tendency for some hon. Members to suggest that, provided one fixes the time for which a man may drive or work around his vehicle, it does not matter how long the spreadover is. There is no specific, provable figure of what the length should be, but we start with the assumption that a man should not drive after too long a working day. We are talking about a 12½ hour day. I know that this creates difficulties. I accept that a great deal can be done at both ends of the journey and that, although this is not actually in the Bill, and is not the first thing to be negotiated between unions and employers, it is still a real problem, particularly in relation to ports—but I will not push that subject too far. At any rate, there is a great deal of scope here.

We all start from the assumption that it is wrong, in modern conditions—this would not be disputed—for a driver to be at the wheel too many hours, however many hours that may be. As I said in Committee, when the rules are first introduced, drivers of goods vehicles and passenger vehicles will, subject to their being at least one and a half hours off duty during the day, be able to spread their 11 hours' work over a period of 12½.

That is not an unreasonable proposition. A 12½ hour working day is pretty long for anyone who is wise enough not to come into Parliament, where it is regarded as the normal practice. But we start from the assumption that it is reasonable to cut down to 12½ hours, and we have said that we will cut down to 11 hours subsequently when we have found out more about the situation.

The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) mentioned the European Economic Community. The E.E.C. rules are still being discussed, though I understand that the length of the working day proposed is 13 hours. We say 12½. There are also a number of differences about how this is to be introduced—but we seem to be arguing about a fairly narrow point.

As for Amendment No. 332, the working day can, under the 1960 Act, be spread over 14 hours, and the driver must have 10 continuous hours rest in every 24—starting from when he begins work. Therefore, although his number of working hours in connection with a vehicle and its load is limited to 11, there is no further limit on the length of the whole working day. One cannot accept that an extension to that would be desirable.

Another point was whether there could be exemptions for spreadovers in certain cases. It would be unfair to mislead the House here, because it would be stupid to go through all this travail and then produce exemptions on just about everything. That would mean that one might as well not have started on the Bill. We have written into Clause 91(3) provision for exemptions. I will not define them at this stage, nor would it be fair for me to lead the House to assume that they would cover vast numbers of people. However, where there are particular problems, we will be able to consider them. The building industry is an example of an area in which the Minister could—I stress, "could"—if he wanted, in the light of representations, make exemptions.

On public service vehicles, I do not think that the spread-over should be extended to the point of allowing men still to be driving 13 hours after they began. These people carry considerable responsibilities and I would have preferred to stick to the simple rule of a maximum 11 hour working day. I make no secret of this, because it is not desirable that such men should still be working after 13 hours. But we must accept the real problems which are caused by shortage of drivers and by the need for split shifts within the industry.

We have had discussions on this and although, in the early stages of those consultations, the bus operators were troubled—there is no point in denying it —at the spread-over being restricted to 11½ hours, this was not an aspect which they pressed particularly strongly. The scheduling adjustments will, of course, have to be made to fit in with a 12½ hour spread-over, but there is no evidence of any insuperable obstacle to this requirement. As I Aid, the unions would be strongly opposed to any extension beyond 12½ hours. While I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has raised some of the problems which are faced when one begins to legislate in this sphere, the Government cannot agree with the increases which are requested. We have a degree of flexibility in the power to make exemptions. One would assume that those exemptions would be made in the light of experience, but there is no point in using those exemption procedures to an extent which would make nonsense of the whole legislation.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill

The Minister mentioned procedures in the construction industry. Would he allow operations which must conform to nature, such as farming and horticulture, to receive special consideration, and would he give an assurance that he will have consultations with the National Farmers' Union on many of these points?

Mr. Marsh

It is the experience on both sides of the House that consultations with the National Fanners' Union are a regular feature. The purpose of the exemption Clause is to enable us, in the light of experience, to make adjustments. A classic example is the delivery of the Christmas mail. This might give rise to an exceptional circumstance which must be coped with. Where a case can be made out—and given that this will be rare—the procedure is included for the Minister to be convinced of the difficulties.

Mr. Stainton

We intended to take this to a Division, but time is pressing. We are disenchanted with what the right hon. Gentleman has said. The principal point to emerge is the reduction of the working day and the spread-over. As the Bill stands, the reduction in the working day would be fractionally more than the reduction in driving time. I wish to put the emphasis the other way round. Had we had a 5 per cent. reduction in the working day compared with a 10 per cent. reduction in driving time, the situation would have been a lot happier.

I appreciate the Minister's problems. To precipitate a change like this is extremely difficult and one realises that, in enforcing such a change, there is difficulty in bringing about increased productivity. I am disappointed that the Minister has not given more flexibility on the question of the working day and, on that note, we must let the matter rest.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Speaker

With the next Amendment, No. 343, we could take also Amendment No. 335, in page 117, line 19, leave out 'stage carriages' and insert 'public service vehicles, and Amendment No. 336, in line 19, after 'carriages', insert: 'or a furniture removal vehicle (being a vehicle engaged in removing the household personal or office furniture belonging to a member of the public'.

Dr. Dickson Mabon

I beg to move Amendment No. 334, in page 117, line 17, to leave out from the beginning to 'be' in line 20.

The Minister, in Committee on 25th April, made an announcement that he would make this Amendment and accordingly we do so now. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) anticipated the debate by welcoming this Amendment.

Since the Opposition were agreeable to Amendment No. 334, No. 335 will perhaps fall with No. 336, if I am not assuming too much. The Minister said he would make the change in two stages. The effect of this Amendment will be to apply the spreadover of 12½ hours in the working day, as at present permitted in Clause 91(3)(b) for persons driving one or more stage carriages to drivers of all kinds of vehicles to which Part VI applies.

8.15 p.m.

This Amendment gives effect to the Minister's intention to allow, as an interim measure, the working day for lorry drivers to spread over 12½ hours, instead of, as at present, 14 hours, so long as they are not actually on duty for more than 11 hours during that time. Reducing the working day for lorry drivers from the present limit of 14 hours to 11 hours in one step would take somewhat longer than if the change were effected in two steps because of the need to work out productivity agreements. The Amendment would enable the first stage towards the eventual full reduction to be made more quickly. Powers to modify or remove this concession by Order will be provided by Government Amendment No. 353 which seeks to amend Clause 91(11).

The House may recall the statement to the Committee in which he proposes At the second stage, these 12½ hours arrangements should cease except in the special case of stage bus operations, where there is the particular problem of carrying peak traffic at both ends of the day."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 25th April, 1968; c. 2861.] He proposed to take powers to reduce the 11-hour working day itself although there are no proposals for this at the present time.

This major Amendment makes unnecessary the two succeeding Amendments, Nos. 335 and 336. I hope the Opposition will agree that we should make the Amendment No. 334 and we can leave the other two Amendments aside.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor

We are, of course, grateful to the Government for this concession and because of this Amendments No. 335 and 336 are not necessary. My hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. Geoffrey Wilson) has fought solidly for that industry in Committee and the hon. Member who so ably put forward the case will be glad that the concession has been made.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Marsh

I beg to move Amendment No. 337, in page 117, line 21, leave out 'equal to' and insert 'not less than'.

This is another of the Amendments which arose out of the discussion in Committee. No doubt at any moment hon. Gentlemen are going to apologise for all the trouble they have given about the additional Amendments put down. This is put down to meet the arguments made in Committee. It is an Amendment which contains my signature as well as that of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor).

It is basically a drafting Amendment and of course the conditions which we were trying to get at are satisfied if drivers are off duty for a period longer than the amount by which the period of duty exceeds 11 hours as well as if they are off duty for a period exactly equal to that amount.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor

I beg to move Amendment No. 342, in page 118, line 5, leave out "sixty" and insert "sixty-six".

I will say just a few words on this matter because I know that some of my hon. Friends are anxious to take part in this debate. The Government briefly have made some major concessions so far as driving time is concerned and so far as the working day is concerned, and we are grateful. We would like to take some of the credit for this because these are our Amendments which we proposed in Committee.

Mr. Marsh

The hon. Member is now being convinced, in fact, that it was a mistake to criticise the Government for putting down these Amendments of which he is so appreciative now.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Taylor

Now the Minister is being foolish. While we are grateful when the Minister brings forward sensible Amendments which answer some of the points we raised in Committee, it is another thing for the Government to use the scarce time available to us to bring in new matters and material. We saw this happen earlier this week. It happened in Committee, when the scarce time we had for discussing important legislation was eaten up.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield

What has all this to do with drivers' hours?

Mr. Taylor

That remark is typical of the hon. Member, both in Committee and on the Floor of the House. We have very little time in which to discuss important matters and he makes irrelevant interruptions.

The Minister has made concessions on driving time and the working day. It seems logical that some move should now be made on the total number of hours in the working week. We have suggested 66 hours instead of 60, and we have done this after careful consultation with industry and commerce. This change is necessary for flexibility to exist and so that industry can take account of the concessions which have been made. In view of those concessions, I hope that the Government, who have admitted that our observations in Committee were in many instances valid, will accept this Amendment to add some much-needed flexibility into the proposed new system.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith

I have listened with interest to the discussion of Amendments dealing with the working day and I suggest that it is important for us now to consider the working week. Some industries have already been mentioned. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) said, the construction industry is vitally important and often requires its labour force to work longer hours than other industries. To increase the hours as the Amendment. suggests would give the industry a greater degree of flexibility and enable it to take advantage of the conditions under which it must work.

Other industries are equally important in this respect. I particularly have in mind industries whose vehicles must wait for considerable periods, usually without the drivers having to work. For example, in the livestock haulage industry, particularly in some rural areas, drivers have long waiting periods at sales at certain times of the year. The same is true of the timber trade. Much time is often devoted to loading, particularly in forestry areas. The driver is not necessarily involved in driving or working at these times—he is not engaged in any-type of fatiguing work—and the greater flexibility which the Amendment would give would be to the advantage of the industry.

This flexibility is also vital in the retail trade. It is required particularly at holiday times, when the work of regular staff is done by others. At times of sickness and emergency this flexibility is needed to enable the retail trade to operate easily. A later Amendment—because of the Guillotine it will probably not be discussed—is concerned with the retail milk trade, an example of an industry in which flexibility is vital and for which a lengthening of the working week would enable it to cope with the emergencies that arise. I have had experience of this trade, which serves the public and does its best to get milk to the doorstep each morning. At times of sickness, holidays and emergency the flexibility which the Amendment would provide is vital.

Mr. James Bennett (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

The Guillotine falls indiscriminately and will no doubt fall on a later Amendment which stands in my name. If I endeavoured to discuss that Amendment I would be out of order. Listening to the remarks of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and bearing in mind what was said earlier about drivers being at the wheel for 13 hours—and how it was asking too much of any man, driving or otherwise, to work that number of hours—it seems that even if my later Amendment were called I could not press it, since if hon. Gentlemen opposite had their way people would have no spare time to undertake any form of additional employment.

After all that has been said about drivers' hours, and how we should do our best to enable drivers to live reasonable lives, I trust that this and similar Opposition Amendments will be smartly thrown out of the window.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield

When drivers are working an average of 58.9 hours a week —while people in most other industries have already achieved a 40-hour week— and when the road haulage industry is obliging 40 per cent. of drivers to work more than 60 hours a week, it is fantastic that hon. Gentlemen opposite should now be claiming a 66-hour week for road haulage. This is absolutely shocking.

At a time when drivers at Banbury, as we saw last week, are able to go on strike for a guaranteed 68-hour week, I am beginning to wonder what type of industry hon. Gentlemen opposite have in mind. The main reason for the pitifully low basic wage in the haulage industry is the very long working week. The sooner that this basic working week is reduced, the better.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that my hon. Friends have been referring not to the hours worked, but to the time spent sitting at the wheel, waiting in queues and so on?

Mr. Huckfield

Had the hon. Gentleman listened to my remarks and read the Bill he would have appreciated the difference between working time and spread-over time. If hon. Gentlemen opposite are seriously arguing for a 66-hour week for the road haulage industry, that is nothing short of shocking.

Mr. Marsh

As my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) has vividly pointed out, there is a major difference of opinion between the two sides which stems from a different philosophy. It is clear that the Amendment would permit a driver to be on duty for 66 hours a week instead of the proposed 60 hours. Shaftesbury must be turning in his grave. If there is to be a Division on this issue, I welcome it. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are arguing that because the new provisions allow a working day of 11 hours and prescribe one rest day a week, these perfectly reasonable hours should be 11 multiplied by six, giving a 66-hour working week.

They get the argument the wrong way round. We start from the other end of the argument. We start from the assumption in the Bill that 60 hours a week as a working week is not very progressive. In 1968, it seems not unreasonable to write such a provision into the Bill. As the Minister responsible for it, I find some difficulty in whipping up enthusiasm. I find myself defending, as a wild red revolutionary, the proposition that in 1968 men should be restricted to a 60-hour working week, when it is argued by the Opposition, including the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor), who is supposedly the embodiment of modern Toryism, that it should be 66 hours a week. It is a first-rate issue on which to have a Division.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor

The Minister has totally distorted what we on this side of the House say. We were not in any circumstances suggesting that men should work 66 hours, hour in and hour out. We were suggesting the flexibility which will make this legislation work. The Minister must be aware of the practical problems which are already being faced in the building industry and in milk distribution, in trying to cope with the kind of legislation which is being rushed through by the Government. This is yet another dreadful example of how this shocking and shameful shovelling through of legislation by the Government—

lt being half-past Eight o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Orders to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 220, Noes 245.

Division No. 196.]	AYES	[8.30 p.m.
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)	Black, Sir Cyril	Bullus, Sir Eric
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)	Blaker, Peter	Burden, F. A.
Astor, John	Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)	Campbell, Gordon
Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)	Body, Richard	Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Awdry, Daniel	Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John	Cary, Sir Robert
Baker, Kenneth (Acton)	Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward	Chichester-Clark, R.
Balniel, Lord	Braine, Bernard	Clark, Henry
Batsford, Brian	Brewis, John	Clegg, Walter
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton	Brinton, Sir Tatton	Cooke, Robert
Bell, Ronald	Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter	Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)	Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)	Corfield, F. V.
Berry, Hn. Anthony	Bruce-Gardynle, J.	Costain, A. P.
Bessell, Peter	Bryan, Paul	Crouch, David
Biffen, John	Buchanan-Smith,Alick (Angus, N&M)	Crowder, F. P.
Biggs-Davison, John	Buck, Antony (Colchester)	Cunningham, Sir Knox
Currie, G. B. H.	Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)	Pym, Francis
Dalkeith, Earl of	Johnston, Russell (Inverness)	Quennell, Miss J. M.
Dance, James	Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)	Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)	Kaberry, Sir Donald	Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)	Kerby, Capt. Henry	Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)	Kershaw, Anthony	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Digby, Simon Wingfield	King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)	Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Dodds-Parker, Douglas	Kirk, Peter	Ridsdale, Julian
Doughty, Charles	Knight, Mrs. Jill	Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Drayson, C. B.	Lambton, Viscount	Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward	Lancaster, Col. C. G.	Royle, Anthony
Eden, Sir John	Lane, David	Russell, Sir Roland
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)	Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry	St. John-Stevas, Norman
Emery, Peter	Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)	Scott, Nicholas
Errington, Sir Eric	Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)	Scott-Hopkins, James
Eyre, Reginald	Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)	Sharples, Richard
Fair, John	Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)	Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Fisher, Nigel	Lubbock, Eric	Silvester, Frederick
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles	McAdden, Sir Stephen	Sinclair, Sir George
Fortescue, Tim	MacArthur, Ian	Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)
Foster, Sir John	Maclean, Sir Fitzroy	Smith, John (London & W'minster)
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.	Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain	Speed, Keith
Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan	McMaster, Stanley	Stainton, Keith
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)	Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)	Stodart, Anthony
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)	Maddan, Martin	Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)
Glyn, Sir Richard	Maginnis, John E.	Tapsell, Peter
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.	Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest	Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Goodhart, Philip	Marten, Neil	Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)
Goodhew, Victor	Maude, Angus	Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Cower, Raymond	Mawby, Ray	Teeling, Sir William
Grant, Anthony	Mills, Peter (Torrington)	Temple, John M.
Gresham Cooke, R.	Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)	Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Grieve, Percy	Miscampbell, Norman	Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.	Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)	Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Gurden, Harold	Monro, Hector	Van Straubenzee, W. R.
Hall, John (Wycombe)	Montgomery, Fergus	Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.	More, Jasper	Vickers, Dame Joan
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)	Morrison, Charles (Devizes)	Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)	Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles	Walker, Peter (Worcester)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)	Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh	Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)	Murton, Oscar	Wall, Patrick
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere	Neave, Airey	Walters, Dennis
Harvie Anderson, Miss	Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael	Webster, David
Hawkins, Paul	Nott, John	Wells, John (Maidstone)
Hay, John	Onslow, Cranley	Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel	Orr, Capt. L. P. S.	Williams, Donald (Dudley)
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward	Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian	Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Heseltine, Michael	Page, Graham (Crosby)	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Higgins, Terence L.	Page, John (Harrow, W.)	Winstanley, Dr. M. P.
Hiley, Joseph	Pardoe, John	Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Mill, J.E. B.	Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)	Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Holland, Philip	Peel, John	Woodnutt, Mark
Hooson, Emlyn	Percival, Ian	Worsley, Marcus
Hordern, Peter	Peyton, John	Wylie, N. R.
Hornby, Richard	Pike, Miss Mervyn	Younger, Hn. George
Howell, David (Guildford)	Pink, R. Bonner
Hunt, John	Pounder, Rafton	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Hutchison, Michael Clark	Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch	Mr. Timothy Kitson and
Iremonger, T. L.	Price, David (Eastleigh)	Mr. Bernard Weatherill.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)	Prior, J. M. L.
NOES
Abse, Leo	Bradley, Tom	Crawshaw, Richard
Albu, Austen	Brooks, Edwin	Cronin, John
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)	Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.	Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Alldritt, Walter	Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)	Dalyell, Tarn
Allen, Scholefield	Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)	Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Archer, Peter	Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)	Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Armstrong, Ernest	Buchan, Norman	Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)	Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)	Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice	Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)	Davies, Harold (Leek)
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)	Davies, Ifor (Cower)
Barnes, Michael	Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James	Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Bence, Cyril	Cant, R. B.	de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)	Carmichael, Neil	Delargy, Hugh
Binns, John	Carter-Jones, Lewis	Dell, Edmund
Bishop, E. S.	Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara	Dempsey, James
Blackburn, F.	Chapman, Donald	Dewar, Donald
Blenkinsop, Arthur	Coe, Denis	Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Boardman, H. (Leigh)	Coleman, Donald	Dickens, James
Booth, Albert	Concannon, J. D.	Dobson, Ray
Boyden, James	Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Doig, Peter
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.	Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)	Driberg, Tom

Dunn, James A.	Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)	Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)	Lawson, George	Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)	Ledger, Ron	Probert, Arthur
Eadie, Alex	Lee, John (Reading)	Randall, Harry
Edelman, Maurice	Lestor, Miss Joan	Rankin, John
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)	Lever, Harold (Cheetham)	Rees, Merlyn
Edwards, William (Merioneth)	Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)	Reynolds, G. W.
Ellis, John	Lomas, Kenneth	Rhodes, Geoffrey
Ennals, David	Loughlin, Charles	Richard, Ivor
Ensor, David	Lyon, Alexander W. (York)	Robertson, John (Paisley)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)	Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)	Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St.P'c'as)
Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)	Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson	Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Faulds, Andrew	McBride, Neil	Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)	McCann, John	Roebuck, Roy
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	MacColl, James	Rose, Paul
Foley, Maurice	MacDermot, Niall	Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Forrester, John	Macdonald, A. H.	Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)
Fowler, Gerry	McGuire, Michael	Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.
Fraser, John (Norwood)	McKay, Mrs. Margaret	Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Freeson, Reginald	Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)	Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Galpern, Sir Myer	Mackintosh, John P.	Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Gardner, Tony	Maclennan, Robert	Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)	McNamara, J. Kevin	Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony	MacPherson, Malcolm	Slater, Joseph
Gregory, Arnold	Mahon, Simon (Bootle)	Small, William
Grey, Charles (Durham)	Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)	Snow, Julian
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)	Mallalieu, J. P. w. (Huddersfield. E.)	Spriggs, Leslie
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)	Manuel, Archie	Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.	Marks, Kenneth	Stonehouse, John
Hamling, William	Marquand, David	Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Hannan, William	Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard	Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Harper, Joseph	Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy	Swain, Thomas
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)	Mayhew, Christopher	Swingler, Stephen
Haseldine, Norman	Mendelson, J. J.	Symonds, J. B.
Hazell, Bert	Mikardo, Ian	Taverne, Dick
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis	Millan, Bruce	Thomas, Rt. Hn. George
Henig, Stanley	Miller, Dr. M. S.	Thomson, Rt. Hn. George
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)	Milne, Edward (Blyth)	Tinn, James
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas	Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)	Tomney, Frank
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)	Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)	Urwin, T. W.
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)	Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)	Varley, Eric G.
Howie, W.	Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)	Walden, Brian (All Saints)
Hoy, James	Morris, John (Aberavon)	Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Huckfield, Leslie	Moyle, Roland	Watkins, David (Consett)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)	Neal, Harold	Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)	Newens, Stan	Wellbeloved, James
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)	Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)	Whitlock, William
Hughes, Roy (Newport)	Norwood, Christopher	Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Hunter, Adam	Ogden, Eric	Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Hynd, John	O'Malley, Brian	Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)	Orme, Stanley	Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)	Oswald, Thomas	Willis, Rt. Hn. George
Jackson, Peter M, (High Peak)	Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)	Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Janner, Sir Barnett	Owen, Will (Morpeth)	Winnick, David
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas	Palmer, Arthur	Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)	Park, Trevor	Woof, Robert
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)	Parker, John (Dagenham)	Wyatt, Woodrow
Jones, Dan (Burnley)	Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)	Yates, Victor
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn(W.Ham, S.)	Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)	Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)	Pentland, Norman	Mr. Harry Gourlay and
Judd, Frank	Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)	Mr. Ernest G. Perry.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded, pursuant to Orders, to put forthwith the Questions on the Amendments, moved by a member of the Government, of which notice had been given, to that part of the Bill to be concluded at half-past Eight o'clock.

Amendments made: No. 343, in page 118, line 6, leave out from 'hours' to end of line 13 and insert: (5A) Subject to the provisions of this section, there shall be, in the case of each working week of a driver, a period of not less than twenty-four hours for which he is off duty, being a period either falling wholly in that week or beginning in that week and ending in the next week; but—

1. (a) where the requirements of the foregoing provisions of this subsection have been satisfied in the case of any week by reference to a period ending in the next week, no part of that period (except any part after the expiration of the first twenty-four hours of it) shall be taken into account for the purpose of satisfying those requirements in the case of the next week; and
2. (b) those requirements need not be satisfied in the case of any working week of a driver who on each working day falling wholly or partly in that week drives one or more stage carriages if those requirements are satisfied in the case of the preceding or following working week of that driver, 1937 being a week in which he drives one or more such carriages on each working day falling wholly or partly in that week.

No. 346, in line 38, leave out 'in exceptional circumstances' and insert: ' otherwise to meet a special need '.

No. 347, in line 41, leave out ' (5)' and insert ' (5A) '.

No. 348, in page 119, line 15, after ' may ' insert: enable any dispensation under paragraph (b)(i) of this subsection to be granted retrospectively and '.

No. 349, in line 19, leave out '(5)' and insert ' (5A) '.

No. 350, in line 29, after ' court' insert '(i)'.

No. 351, in line 32, at end insert: 'or (ii) in the case of a person charged under paragraph (b) of this subsection, that the contravention was due to the fact that the driver had for any particular period or periods driven or been on duty otherwise than in the employment of that person or, as the case may be, otherwise than in the employment in which he is subject to the orders of that person, and that the person charged was not, and could not reasonably have become, aware of that fact'.

No. 353, in line 36, leave out from beginning to ' and ' in line 42 and insert:

(a) direct that subsection (1) of this section shall have effect with the substitution for the reference to ten hours of a reference to nine hours;

(b) direct that paragraph (a) of subsection (3) of this section shall have effect with the substitution for the reference to eleven hours of a reference to any shorter period, or remove, modify or add to the provisions of that subsection containing exceptions to the said paragraph (a);

(c) remove, modify or add to any of the requirements of subsection (2), (4), (5) or (5A) of this section or any of the exemptions provided for by subsections (6), (7) and (8) thereof.

No. 355, in line 44, at end insert ^* including provisions amending any definition in section 98 of this Act which is relevant to any of the provisions affected by the order '.—[Mr. Marsh. ]