HC Deb 16 February 1976 vol 905 cc959-88

Order for Second Reading read.

4.22 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Kenneth Marks)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

This is a short, technical and, I hope, uncontroversial Bill. It makes certain changes in our minimum driving ages and gives the Secretary of State wider powers to make regulations about drivers' hours. In both cases the Bill is needed because of EEC Regulation No. 543 of 1969, which deals with these matters. Under the Treaty of Accession these provisions have been in force within the United Kingdom for international journeys since April 1973.

The provisions of the Regulation relating to minimum drivers' ages came into force for internal journeys on 1st January 1976. The operation of those relating to drivers' hours has, however, as announced by my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport, been deferred until 1st July 1976, following an application to the Commission by the Government under Article 135 of the Act of Accession.

The changes in minimum driving ages and related driver licensing provisions are contained in Clause 1 and the schedules. They are, however, considerably less extensive in effect than might be supposed from the amount of detail contained in the rather lengthy schedules. Perhaps before explaining what these changes are I should say a word about why any changes are necessary at all.

To put it as simply as I can, the reason is that the EEC Regulation operates on most vehicles but not on all. It depends on the type of vehicle and, in some cases, on the purpose for which a vehicle is being used. In the case of goods vehicles, its minimum age provisions are governed by the criterion of permissible maximum weight, and in the case of passenger vehicles by seating capacity. These are the criteria used generally in Europe. Our own criterion—which dates back a long time—has been unladen weight.

Since these EEC provisions took direct effect on 1st January, we have been in a situation in which the EEC Regulation governs the minimum driving ages for those vehicles to which it applies and the provisions of Section 4 of the Road Traffic Act 1972 determine them for the vehicles to which the Regulation does not apply.

This is an undesirable situation in both administrative and enforcement terms, not least because minimum age restrictions have to be evidenced on our driving licences, and it is quite impossible to do so with this mixture of criteria—related not only to unladen weight for goods vehicles, for example, but also according to the use to which a particular vehicle is being put.

I should remind the House that the Conservative Administration considered this matter and, after full consultation with all interested organisations, decided that the best solution was to realign our minimum age criteria with those used in the EEC Regulation and, as I have said, generally in the rest of Europe. The then Minister for Transport, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), announced this in a Press notice issued on 19th February 1973. The Government endorse his conclusion. Permissible maximum weight is really a more sensible criterion of vehicle size for driver licensing purposes than unladen weight.

For technical reasons, the Bill replaces the present minimum age criteria contained in Section 4 of the Road Traffic Act 1972 by an amendment to Section 96, the effect of which is that anyone below the specified minimum age for the various categories of vehicle will be disqualified from holding a driving licence. As I have said, the categories are redefined in European terms. However, the total effect of these changes will, in practice, be small. First, no one over 21 will be affected at all. Secondly, Schedule 2 secures that no driver, of whatever age, with an existing entitlement will be affected.

Mr. Clement Freud (Isle of Ely)

First the hon. Gentleman says that people will be disqualified from holding a licence, and now he says that no one who holds a licence will be disqualified. Will he be good enough to explain?

Mr. Marks

People who newly apply for a licence will be disqualified but people between the ages of 17 and 21 who already hold a licence will not be disqualified. There is no change for existing licence holders.

Thirdly, people between the ages of 18 and 21, applying for a licence for the first time, will be restricted to goods vehicles not exceeding 7.5 metric tons permissible maximum weight instead of being restricted to those not exceeding 3 tons unladen weight. The effect of this change will be comparatively small—the two criteria are roughly equivalent. The main effect is on 17-year-olds who, on first licensing, will be restricted to goods vehicles not exceeding 3.5 tons metric—that is, about 30 cwt. unladen—instead of those not exceeding 3 tons unladen. I think that the the House will agree that such a restriction of 17-year-olds to the smaller goods vehicle will be a good thing in road safety terms.

So far as passenger vehicles are concerned, new drivers under 21 will be limited to nine-seaters—driver and eight passengers. This is the only effect of the EEC Regulation on entitlements to drive passenger vehicles, and it is reflected in the Bill. I stress this because a certain amount of misunderstanding has arisen over the provisions in Article 5(2)(c) of the Regulation. These require anyone driving a passenger vehicle with more than nine seats to hold a certificate of professional competence to drive passenger vehicles. I repeat that, as my hon. Friend has already said, the holding of an ordinary driving licence will be regarded as meeting this requirement.

Very briefly, therefore, those are the practical effects of Clause 1 and the related schedules. The opportunity has also been taken to make a corresponding change in the threshold at which the requirement for a heavy goods vehicle driver's vocational licence applies, changing it from 3 tons unladen to 7.5 metric tons permissible maximum weight.

Again, however, Schedule 2 contains suitable transitional provisions to ensure that existing drivers are not disadvantaged. Those with recent experience of driving vehicles which are brought into the category of heavy goods vehicle by reason of the change will be able to claim an appropriate vocational driving licence without having to take the special heavy goods vehicle driving test.

Before leaving this part of the Bill, there is a further point which I should mention. It concerns the timetable for enactment of the Bill and the reference in Clause 4 to the date of 1st January 1976. When this Bill was drafted, it was envisaged that it would be enacted in time for these provisions for the harmonisation of minimum age legislation to come into force, with the EEC Regulation, on 1st January. Because printing had to be done in advance, new licences expressed to take effect from 1st January 1976 have been issued in terms consistent with the new minimum ages and vehicle categories imposed by the EEC Regulation. These new licences do not reflect the domestic minimum age provisions which, under Section 4 of the Road Traffic Act 1972, still apply to some vehicles or to some journeys, until that section is repealed by this Bill.

Clause 1 and Schedule 2 therefore contain provisions, introduced in another place, to ensure that such licences are valid and that no one may be prosecuted for driving in accordance with the terms of such a licence. These provisions will be paralleled by an amendment to Clause 4, which we hope to table in Committee, to provide that the minimum age provisions of the Bill will come into force on Royal Assent.

I turn now to the provisions of Clauses 2 and 3, which deal with the subject of drivers' hours. What I have said so far concerns only Article 5 of Regulation 543. The remainder of the Regulation deals with driving periods and rest periods for road transport crews. Under the Treaty of Accession, these provisions have been in force in this country for international journeys since April 1973. They were due to come into force for internal journeys on 1st January 1976 but have been deferred until 1st July.

If I may explain some of the background, my hon. Friend received representations from employers' associations and unions in the road transport industry that the implementation of these provisions in present circumstances would impose heavy financial burdens on the industry and would cause heavy dislocation to vital services. This is because the Regulation is more restrictive than the drivers' hours requirements in force here under our own Transport Act 1968. In addition, the Regulation is currently under review and it would clearly be undesirable to introduce changes in drivers' hours twice in quick succession, as we would have to do should the Regulation be altered. For these reasons, my hon. Friend sought to have the coming into force of the Regulation for internal journeys deferred. Agreement could not be reached at the Council of Transport Ministers on 10th and 11th December 1975, but the EEC Commission accepted our economic arguments and on 22nd December authorised protective measures under Article 135 of the Act of Accession for a period of six months. Similar authorisation was given to the Republic of Ireland and Denmark.

Meanwhile, the Commission is urgently preparing proposals for the amendment of the Regulation itself, which it is hoped will include provision for a further period of deferment. My hon. Friend is most concerned to see amendments made to the Regulation which he considers would make it more acceptable to those concerned in this country. He is not alone in this, because several member States have found parts of the Regulation to be unrealistic. They, too, are in favour of making it more flexible.

Having said that, I should make it clear that the principles of the driving and rest provisions, which have arisen from concern with road safety and social conditions, are perfectly acceptable to the Government, and are, indeed, principles which have been recognised in our road transport legislation for more than 40 years. Our own legal requirements, however, have developed in a different way from those in the EEC Regulation, and our own requirements will generally continue to apply to drivers of those vehicles outside the scope of the Regulation. We therefore foresee that, when the Regulation is implemented, problems will arise from the simultaneous operation side by side of two different codes. These problems will be particularly acute for drivers whose work brings them first under one code and then under the other in the same day or week. To remove, or at least limit, these problems will require a fairly radical change in Part VI of the Transport Act 1968, under which existing drivers' hours rules are laid down, as well as supplementation of Regulation 543.

The opportunity of this Bill has, therefore, been taken to seek the necessary enabling powers so that, when the time comes to implement Regulation 543, it can be fitted smoothly into a compatible legal framework, and so that those who work in the road transport industry can operate within a properly integrated system of control. The power to implement Regulation 543 is given by Section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972, but this power is not wide enough for all that ought to be done when the Regulation extends to internal transport as well as international journeys.

Clause 2 of the Bill effects these changes and is intended to do two things. First, it would provide a power for the Secretary of State to adapt by regulation Part VI of the 1968 Act to ensure compatibility of operation with the Regulation. This adaptation could, for example, take the form of the substitution in Part VI of the entire framework of the EEC Regulation, while retaining the hours limits considered appropriate for United Kingdom law. The power would also extend to enable Part VI to be adapted to take account of the operation of any other relevant Community provisions, whether directly applicable or not.

Secondly, Clause 2 would extend the enforcement provisions of the 1968 Act to any directly applicable Community provisions about the driving of road vehicles. This would be achieved by extending to internal journeys the enforcement provisions of the 1968 Act which were applied by Schedule 4 to the European Communities Act to international journeys. Clause 2 also makes provision for supplementary and consequential provisions, particularly in relation to record-keeping.

Regulations made under Section 95(1) of the 1968 Act as amended by Clause 2 would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure in this House. My hon. Friend intends to introduce an amendment to this effect in Committee in response to the views expressed in another place.

Clause 4(2) makes provision for Clause 2 to come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may appoint, and different days may be appointed for different provisions. This would allow account to be taken of the deferment of Regulation 543/69 and the outcome of discussions about its amendment.

Clause 3 clarifies the provision in Part VI of the 1968 Act which confers jurisdiction on magistrates' courts to try summary cases for the contravention of the drivers' hours and records requirements. Section 103(7) of that Act at present provides that proceedings for a drivers' hours offence may be commenced in any court having jurisdiction in the place where the person charged with the offence is for the time being". As amended, the section would make it clear that proceedings could be instigated in a court with jurisdiction for the place where the person charged with driving when evidence of the offence first came to light, the place where the offender is or where he resides when proceedings are commenced, or the place where the offender normally operates.

I commend the Bill to the House.

4.39 p.m.

Mr. Norman Fowler (Sutton Coldfield)

It is appropriate that we should be debating this subject since we are, of course, awaiting the Government's consultative document on transport which will begin the most important debate on transport policy for almost a decade.

Already there are the unmistakable signs of the gathering storm, with mass lobbies of this House and the intense public relations campaign that we have seen in past weeks. In the claims and counter-claims, however, one fact stands out, and that is that in the carriage of freight road transport is pre-eminent and, what is more, that it will continue so irrespective of the final shape of the consultative document that the Minister proposes to issue.

It is right that we should remind ourselves of that fact. Road transport is the chief means whereby goods travel, and no policy which fails to recognise that is realistic. More than two-thirds of the goods which go by road transport travel distances of 25 miles or less. It would be folly to think that any Government edict would transfer any significant part of that load to rail or anywhere else.

That being the case, any new policy affecting road transport should be examined to see whether it increases the cost of transport because, if it does, it is the public who will suffer through having to pay higher prices for the goods transported.

The Bill makes changes in our minimum driving ages and gives the Secretary of State wider powers to make regulations about drivers' hours. The obvious point of concern is the restrictions introduced on drivers' hours and distances covered. EEC Regulations are more restrictive than the regulations laid down in the 1968 Act. Under the European rules no driver may drive for more than eight hours or 450 kilometres—roughly 280 miles. Our Regulations stipulate 10 hours and an unlimited distance. Clearly, if the European system were adopted immediately there would be an enormous increase in costs.

The Freight Transport Association estimates that the cost of implementing the drivers' hours provisions alone would be about £300 million. Extra drivers, changed schedules and new depots would be needed. The dislocation would be enormous. The net result would be that, at a time when this country is fighting desperately for economic recovery, road transport would be made more difficult and more expensive. That would be totally unacceptable, and we therefore support any efforts by the Government to get the provisions changed. Such a move is particularly important at a time when it is clear that other European countries are dissatisfied with them.

All the evidence is that the present rules are not well observed in the Common Market countries, and the feeling against them in Europe appears to be growing. As the Minister knows, there was a meeting of the Joint Consultative Committee on Transport in Brussels last week, and representatives from both employers and unions made clear that they were totally dissatisfied with the rules as they now stand. Clearly, it would be ludicrous for the Government to implement changes if they were then forced to alter them. Two sets of changes in quick succession would make business planning an absolute nightmare.

I hope it is not thought that only the road haulage industry feels strongly about the Common Market Regulations. The fiercest opposition comes from the passenger transport industry, which is particularly concerned about the eight-hour provision and the rest-day provisions which go with it. It would hit particularly the small operator and would entirely eliminate some forms of travel like the long-day excursion. An example is the one-day trip from London to Stratford-on-Avon. On such a trip the driver would exceed the eight-hour maximum, and there is no prospect of a coach operator putting on two drivers as that would make the trip uneconomic. Other disadvantages also flow, and all told coach and bus operators regard the European regulations as a disaster.

After pressure had been exerted by both sides of industry the Government managed to secure a six-month stay of execution. The Regulations should have come into operation on 1st January. Postponement has been ensured until 1st July, but no one should be under the slightest misapprehension that that by itself is enough. The Freight Transport Association says that there should be at least 12 months after enactment, and preferably 24 months, until it could bring the Regulations into force. I gather that Mr. Jack Jones has suggested that a postponement of four years would be realistic.

The point is that, rather than postponement or delay, we need a better law. That should be the overall aim of the Government. We need a law which, above all, will give flexibility to the member States and which meets the different needs of the different States. That is what the Government should press for, and if they did that they would be supported by other European nations.

The next important part of the legislation concerns the changes in definition of heavy goods vehicles. Obviously, any change in that respect is important because it might mean that a driver would have to get the stricter heavy goods vehicle licence. One of the principal effects of the Bill is to change the criteria for the classification of vehicles. Our present definition of unladen weight is to be replaced by the European definition of permissible maximum weight. The general public will not regard that as one of the more earth-shattering changes of recent years. However, a characteristic of the Bill is that the detailed and tech- nical definitions hide important changes. The effect is, first, that 14,000 vehicles will become heavy goods vehicles and that 20,000 vehicles will cease to be so.

Let me deal first with the 14,000 vehicles. These are lorries of three tons unladen weight or less which have a permissible maximum weight of over 7.5 tonnes. They will be caught by the European rules, as will the drivers. It is estimated that about 20,000 drivers will be affected by the new rules. The Government are obviously right to seek to protect the livelihoods of these drivels. It would have been intolerable had the Government not sought to do so. At present, the drivers need only an ordinary driving licence. The Government propose that they should now have limited licences for the class of vehicles that they have been used to driving. We regard that as a sensible compromise solution.

I have questions to raise, however, on the second group of vehicles. In future, vehicles of less than 7.5 tonnes permissible maximum weight will no longer be regarded as heavy goods vehicles. That will be so even though they may be over the old British limit of three tons. There is confusion here. The changes have been expected inside the road transport industry and preparations have been made. When the industry has asked the Department when the Regulations will come into effect, it has been given the date of 1st January 1976. But, of course, legislation does not become operative until it is passed by the House. There is a general exception in this legislation, but the British law remains in force. Thus the 20,000 vehicles which will cease to be heavy goods vehicles when the Bill is passed remain heavy goods vehicles at present.

This is not an academic point, as a report in the Commercial Motor makes clear. The report says that chaos has hit the industry. It goes on to say: Many hauliers who had been told by the Department of Employment that these new regulations…were being adopted in Britain from January 1 mistakenly believe that only vehicles over 7.5 tonnes gross now need HGV driving licences. One case has already been reported where a driver of a vehicle over 3 tons unladen has been stopped and threatened with prosecution because he was not an HGV holder. The FTA confirmed that this was the position and said that it was obvious from the number of calls it had received that a lot of operators were seeking to take advantage of a law which does not yet exist.

A similar point has been put to me by a company in Ilkeston, Derbyshire. A director of the company says in a letter: We employ two drivers, one with HGV licence and one without, and use two vehicles… The HGV driver retired this week and we are not setting on another driver. As a consequence…we are selling both our existing vehicles and taking delivery of a tipping lorry which is under 7.5 tonnes…which under the EEC regulations…our non-licensed driver will be entitled to drive. However, it would appear we shall fall foul of the over 3 tons unladen weight' regulations until such time as the relevant Act of Parliament is passed. That director states that he has spent over £5,000 on a vehicle which he cannot use, and he asks: What do we tell our customers when we cannot give the service to which they are accustomed? Is there a form of dispensation for people caught in this manner? If not, why not? The Minister should give the industry some guidance on that. The Department has not only given guidance that legislation will take effect on 1st January 1976 but it has taken special action to preserve that starting point in the case of driving licences issued since 1st January which meet the minimum age requirements of the European Regulations. In other words, even though the legislation has not gone through Parliament, the Government are introducing a retrospective provision which will prevent a driver running foul of existing British law on minimum age Regulations.

The Regulation governing what constitutes a heavy goods vehicle remains in force. But although the law is being changed and all departmental advice has been that 1st January will be the starting date, operators will still be breaking the law and drivers will be subject to prosecution. Is that the legal position? What is the prosecution position in such cases, and are the Government proposing any corrective action?

I turn next to the question of passenger vehicles. Article 5 of the EEC Regulations requires that any driver of a vehicle carrying more than nine persons should hold a certificate of professional competence. The Under-Secretary has mentioned this, and the Minister for Transport has said that he proposes to recognise an ordinary driving licence as proof of competence to drive a minibus, provided that it is not operated for hire or reward. If it is, the driver will need a public service vehicle licence. I understand that the Minister is seeking exemption for all minibus operators. We therefore come to the difficult question of what constitutes "for hire or reward". That is of particular importance to voluntary organisations.

Before Christmas, the Government gave guidance that if contributions made were entirely unqualified—that is, not placing any obligation on the voluntary organisation to organise a trip—they would not be caught. That does not seem to cover the likeliest situation Surely it would be more likely for money to be collected for the purpose of that trip. It seems likely that a voluntary body organising a holiday for pensioners or for some other group with specialist needs would charge for the journey, even if it was at a minimum rate. Will that be interpreted as being for hire or reward?

Many voluntary organisations are currently in severe financial difficulties. They may have no option but to charge at least something for transport. What consultations have there been with voluntary organisations, and particularly with the National Council for Social Service, which is the obvious organisation to advise the Department on any evidence that the provisions are causing hardship?

There is also the important issue of parliamentary scrutiny of changes in the law proposed by the Government. The 1968 Act required that changes in drivers' hours should be debated and approved in the House. That does not appear to be the original intention of the legislation. Originally changes would not have been subject to affirmative resolution, but that has now been altered, and we welcome it. It would be serious if Community rules on drivers' hours were immediately implemented, and for that reason we believe that any future changes must be fully debated in the House. Only then will such changes receive the examination they deserve. The recent debate on speed limits showed how unsatisfactory the alternative system can be in Parliament. I congratulate Lord Teviot and Lord Mowbray Segrave and Stourton on raising the matter and for winning a clear concesson from the Government that changes will be subject to the affirmative procedure and debated in both Houses.

This is important legislation affecting an important industry. We support the general intention to improve road safety and the important provision to save police time and money when enforcing the law. I hope that the Government will pursue this intention in other parts of their road transport policy. The Bill requires scrutiny in Committee but it deserves a Second Reading.

4.56 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop (South Shields)

I apologise to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for not being in the House when he began his comments. I wish to add my anxiety about the way in which these measures may operate, to avoid any suspicion that it is a matter which is of concern only to the critics on the Opposition Benches. There are anxieties throughout the House.

I pay tribute to all those in the Department of the Environment, including the Minister for Transport, who have spent a great deal of time trying to secure a stay of execution and alteration to the provisions that are likely to come into force through the Community regulations. It is important to understand what a strong case was argued to achieve major changes in the proposals and to get a more effective stay than the six months which have been secured.

Is there any hope of further progress in that direction? Perhaps the anxieties expressed in other countries may prove more effective. Can we give more voice to those anxieties, as well as to our own, to secure a review of the provisions? Many people in my constituency and elsewhere are concerned about the rigidity of the new rules and there are fears that work might be lost if the rules are imposed within the time limit suggested, and that from a national economic point of view, it might make sense if there were a prospect of road haulage work moving to rail. That is not the only possibility. Certain loads might go out of existence. There are fears of that kind, as well as about the implications of considerable increases in costs.

We are all concerned to ensure the highest level of safety and the promotion of safety. Therefore, naturally we must make concessions which will meet that need. One accepts that wholly. However, I hope very much that we have not heard the last word on these proposals, nor, indeed, on the question of the tacho-graphs, which has also raised plenty of problems in the past.

I merely want to make clear that some of us are conscious of the concern and anxiety that is being expressed. We shall be glad to hear whether any further discussions and negotiations are planned and what prospects of success there may be in them.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Clement Freud (Isle of Ely)

This is probably not one of the most important Bills to come before the House, although it has been given a false prominence by having been deemed by the Chair to be more important than a debate about the situation in South Africa.

There has been extraordinary confusion about the Bill, which was believed at first to be able at a stroke to change the lives of British drivers. In fact, the only people who will be affected by it will be youths between the ages of 17 and 21 who have not as yet got a heavy goods vehicle licence or a public service vehicle licence.

There is a case which I should like to raise. It was referred to by the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler), and I have raised it previously with the Minister. It concerns the disparity between drivers who drive public service vehicles for gain and those who do not do so for gain. I raised this matter previously because I found in my constituency that there were people driving works buses with a very large number of people in them, but driving without anything other than an ordinary common-or-garden driving licence. This was quite legal. However, there was an appalling case on Christmas Eve when an old peoples' outing found that their own minibus was out of order, went to a friendly motor hire company and borrowed a bus for nothing, and were then prosecuted because the ownership of that bus lay with someone who was in the business for gain. If ever a law needed to be tidied up, not only for the sake of common sense but also for the safety of those on the road, it is very much this law.

I notice on page 4 of the Bill the clause heading Extension of jurisdiction over offences about drivers' hours. I make no apology for raising this because if we are to have laws in this land, let them be laws which are rational and capable of comprehension. Under this clause heading the Bill states: An offence under this Part of this Act may be treated for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction on a court (but without prejudice to any jurisdiction it may have apart from this subsection) as having been committed in any of the following places". It seems to me that what the Bill is trying to do is to find someone who will be legally responsible to meet a prosecution, irrespective of where it takes place. Quite obviously, in an eight-hour journey, this could be in a very substantial number of places.

When one comes to paragraph (c) one finds gobbledegook of a very high order. It says, the place where at that time that person or, in the case of an employee-driver, that person's employer or, in the case of an owner-driver, the person for whom he was driving". How can an owner-driver have someone for whom he was driving as his place or principal place of business or his operating centre for the vehicle in question"? Paragraph (b) says: the place where that person resides or is believed to reside or be at the time when the proceedings are commenced". It would be hard to think of anyone who does not come within those criteria.

Perhaps the most important part of this does affect drivers' hours. It has been said already that drivers' hours are not altered. What the Bill does is to provide an enabling measure so that when the EEC member countries lose patience with our reluctance to conform to Community law, our traffic Acts can be amended. It is very likely that the present limitations on hours which are operative within the EEC will not be introduced here because there is considerable argument, especially in France and Holland, about their desirability. However, if the limitations were to be introduced they would, as has been said, be strenuously opposed by haulage contractors, and I think particularly in those parts of the country represented by my right hon. and hon. Friends. I am talking about Cornwall, Roxburgh, Selkirk, Peebles, Berwick—the list is very long; as large as the number of my colleagues.

However, the Minister must understand that if a lorry is to travel from Scotland to the Midlands, say, that would entail an overnight stay with consequent extra costs. That is something that we are absolutely unprepared to support. It has been believed by some that as much as 20 per cent. will be added to the bill, caused by the overnight stoppage and the extra driving. I am sure that this matter will be cleared up in Committee.

I am sure that this is a good Bill. We do not oppose it in any way.

5.6 p.m.

Mr. Peter Fry (Wellingborough)

I commence by referring to the subject raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) and the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud)—the confusion that arises over the use of minibuses and coaches by people who do not hold public vehicle service licences or heavy goods vehicle licences and, indeed, the use of vehicles which are subject only to the normal Ministry of Transport test. This is an area which could well have been looked at in regard to this Bill.

I want to put a situation to the Minister. Last year there was considerable concern, expressed particularly on the Labour Benches, about a number of accidents to coaches on the highway. I remind the Minister that the drivers of those coaches had taken an extended driving test and that those vehicles were subject to very stringent examination procedures. However, the existence in Britain of many other vehicles of similar types should also give the Government cause for concern.

Is the Minister aware that any school or parent-teacher association can quite easily purchase a clapped-out coach—a coach which, perhaps, has ceased to be a "public service vehicle", or which, perhaps, has for a while been driven for carrying people to and from their regular places of work—and that that vehicle can then be operated to carry schoolchildren on school journeys by someone who holds only a normal driving licence, as long as that person is over 21, and that the vehicle is subject only to the normal MOT examination?

I know that the Minister for Transport is rightly concerned with the question of road safety. Everyone in the House would agree that this is a very high priority at present. However, this is a matter which should be examined, not only because of the road safety angle, but also, quite rightly, because the coach firm proprietors, who have to spend a lot of money in training personnel and maintaining their vehicles, often consider that they are subjected to very unfair competition from voluntary organisations.

I do not want my remarks to be misinterpreted. I am not attacking voluntary organisations or PTAs which wish to provide vehicles to convey their members or pupils. What I am saying that it is in the interests of everyone concerned to ensure that the people who drive those vehicles are sufficiently competent to do so and that the vehicles are very thoroughly examined.

There is a good precedent here in what is happening in Norfolk at present. That is the experiment with the minibus which is being operated by members of a parish council. That is one of the most encouraging ideas which has been seen for a long time in the whole realm of rural transport. It has at least as its essential condition the provision that the voluntary drivers must undertake an advanced driving test and that the vehicle is maintained by the local subsidiary of the National Bus Company. I therefore hope that the Minister, even though perhaps not in this Bill, will consider this matter further.

As my hon. Friend said, the Opposition welcome the Bill. It would have been possible to make one or two churlish comments about the time that it has taken to prepare it, but I do not think that comments such as that are suitable on an occasion when there is general approval for this measure. It is not a Bill that is subject to party political differences. We all appreciate that there is a real need to improve road safety and at the same time to protect the interests not only of the operators and their employees but also the users of road trans- port, those who use it for freight or are conveyed as passengers.

I, too, welcome the efforts of certain noble Lords in the other place who persuaded the Government that any major changes in the regulations should be subject to the affirmative procedure. It would have been wrong to proceed by a secondary method to achieve something that deserves primary legislation.

I emphasise what my hon. Friend said about the rôle of the road transport industry. The last year for which full figures are available is 1973, during which the industry operated no fewer than 55 million ton miles. By any comparison the industry is the major carrier of freight and it is doing this work on roads which, to be honest, bear poor comparison with some of the roadworks of our EEC partners.

To put the matter into context I should like to quote the percentage freight carried on the roads in this country compared with the situation of some of our neighbours and partners. In this country in 1973, 79 per cent. of all freight went by road, compared with 45 per cent. in West Germany, 47 per cent. in France, and 60 per cent. in the Netherlands. We can, therefore, see the crucial importance of the road haulage industry to the carriage of freight in this country.

I propose now to consider the future. This Bill is only the first course of what could be a prolonged meal. It is a first course which all our EEC partners appear to consider reasonable. The differences will come when we get to the meat rather later in the year, and I understand that the meeting in Brussels last week showed a wide degree of difference particularly between the interests of the various countries and the proposals put forward by the Commission. It is right to realise that there will be difficult days ahead, and the Minister will need all the all-party support that he can get to put forward our country's interests.

The passenger-carrying interests are particularly concerned about the proposal that the working week should be of 46 hours, and not 48 as at present. We appreciate that under existing law they are limited to a 92-hour working fortnight, but they maintain that the reduction of two hours in one week will he expensive and difficult to operate.

They further feel strongly that the idea of reducing the maximum working day to a 12-hour period will be disastrous financially. My hon. Friend rightly drew attention to excursions to Stratford-on-Avon. May I be more mundane and refer to excursions to Blackpool and other seaside places which entail long hauls for many coach operators. Many of them will find it impossible to operate on anything like the same scale of economies as they do now if the Commission's new proposals as outlined in the past two or three weeks come into force.

One of the most difficult of these will be the 65-hour maximum week. The reason for this is simple. The 65 hours would include all those parts of the day when a driver, having driven his coach-load to the seaside, is waiting before he drives his passengers back home again. The number of hours that he drives could be within the limit, but the total working day would soon exceed 16 hours. By a little arithmetic one can work out that four times 16 is 64 hours a week, and if the new 65-hour week limit is agreed that man will be able to do no more work after those four days.

The passenger interests are so concerned that they tried to put a figure on what the Commission's proposals would cost the bus industry. They came up with a total of £55 million. I am sure that nobody, least of all the Minister for Transport, would want to load the passenger-carrying industry with an increase of that kind at this time.

I now turn briefly to the lorry sector. The figure which the Commission's proposals would cost has been estimated at about £300 million, and I believe that to be a conservative estimate. Here, too, the main lorry interests are concerned about the length of the working day. They are also concerned about the proposal to restrict the length of a journey to 450 kilometres. The Commission's proposals during the last few days do nothing to allay the fears of the lorry interests. Indeed, the proposal that the 450 kilometre limit may be waived if a tachograph is installed seems to be an odd concession and bears no relation to the objections about overall travelling distances.

There is concern, too, that many of the proposals are rather irrelevant. 'I he suggestion, for example, that during a sea crossing a part of the time can be allocated to a rest time is rather irrelevant if the sea crossing has to be a minimum of seven hours for it to apply. Nothing has been said in the Commission's proposals about those many sea crossings between this country and the EEC countries which take less than seven hours.

There are other issues about which the various transport interests are concerned, and I hope that the Minister will take note of their worries. I should like to list one or two for him. They consider that there is a need for special concessions to apply to driving to and from recognised development areas in the community. At the moment these are not recognised. Secondly, they feel that the rules on drivers' hours and other regulations need not apply to non-driving crew members. They appear to do so now.

Thirdly, they feel that the maximum rest period should be a 24-hour day. This is important in relation to the restriction in the maximum working week, because if the period is longer than 24 hours it makes it difficult for any operator to exercise any kind of shift system from one week to the next. The fact that the Commission always talks in terms of a seven-day period rather than a calendar week may be simpler for the Commission, but it can cause considerable domestic upsets in many families where the husband is the driver of a bus or long-distance lorry.

Furthermore, the lorry interests believe that the regulations on hours should apply to driving on duty. I think I made that clear in my comments about excursions to places such as Blackpool. Finally, they suggest that the daily driving limit should be 10 hours, and the maximum continuous driving period should be five hours and not four. These proposals are not an attempt to make life more difficult for the driver in this country or to endanger the safety of the public. They are put forward because the proposals as they stand constitute a considerable threat to the work of many drivers. They constitute a threat to the costs that the operators have to face, and ultimately, therefore, they are a threat to the general public.

I very much hope that when the Minister goes to Brussels and talks about the next course he will realise that he will have the support of the House in standing up for British interests. I trust he will realise that we do not want a revamp of Regulation 543/69. As my hon. Friend said, we want a new law, a good law which is in the interests of us all, particularly the people of this country.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. Donald Stewart (Western Isles)

I intervene briefly in this debate because I wish to deal with only a restricted part of the Bill.

The Transport Act having been placed on the statute book in 1968, one might wonder why it is necessary, after such a short time, to have this Bill. As the Minister said, the intention is that the Bill shall comply with an EEC regulation. That is not a selling point which will make a great impression on me. However, I have an open mind and I am prepared to accept that there is some merit in parts of the Bill. The provisions relating to coaches, minibuses and 17-year-old drivers are rational enough. I do not believe anyone in the House quarrels with those provisions.

I am concerned more about Clause 2 relating to drivers' hours. In Scotland, and certainly in the Highlands and Islands, there is a great deal of opposition to this part of the Bill—on the employers' side because it will increase cost factors and there will need to be a re-adaptation of their schedules, and from the workers because they can see the possibility of a restriction of their earnings. On certain routes lorries might have to be withdrawn altogether because the operating cost would be too high.

In my constituency there is a textile firm which took a consignment of machinery from Bradford two years ago, and the cost of transporting the lorry on the four-hour sea journey was higher than the cost of the trip by road from Bradford. These costs go on to the Islands at all times. If the companies are obliged to employ two drivers on a journey or to employ a changeover driver, their operating costs may well be increased.

There are also difficulties involved in carrying livestock from the North of Scotland to the markets in the South-East. Such journeys could hardly be carried out within the times laid down in the Bill. Spokesmen for the Transport and General Workers' Union have said that they are looking for flexibility in the Bill, and I too wish to see some flexibility.

In many parts of the Highlands of Scotland there are no motorways and, indeed, hardly any roads over long distances. The alternative railway services have already disappeared, under the Beeching cuts. Here I take issue with the hon. Members for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) and for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) in their assertions about the rôle which road transport must play in a future integrated transport system. I accept that it must remain the main carrier, but I hope that in future it will not be responsible for so high a figure as 79 per cent. of the carriage. I understand that in the 1968 Act there were certain exemptions for the Highlands area. I suggest that the Minister for Transport should press the EEC to ensure that these exemptions remain when the Bill goes on to the statute book.

5.22 p.m.

Mr. Bruce George (Walsall, South)

I welcome the Bill in general. I believe that it is the major concern of hon. Members to have as much safety as possible in road transport, and I speak particularly of coaches. At the same time, whilst it is a major concern, I do not think we should regard it as an absolute criterion. If we were concerned totally with safety we would go back to the age of the man walking in front of a vehicle and waving a red flag, and drivers would not drive for more than six hours in any one day. But clearly, in view of the coach disasters which took place last year—which in some cases, I agree, were over-publicised by the media—we must learn lessons from the accidents which involve the coach hire industry, and improve safety.

We must not be guilty of over-exaggeration. I have no brief for any one section of the industry. I have on many occasions hired coaches and have been guilty of looking for cheapness in hiring a coach. When one sends off for a quotation to hire a coach, let us say to travel to Stratford-upon-Avon—which has become very famous in the last half-hour or so—one has very much in mind the cost, and one often takes the cheapest quotation. But cheapness is not always consistent with safety.

I have some reservations about the way in which sections of the coach hire industry operates. There are many reputable companies. It is an industry with a variable pattern of ownership and size. On the one hand, there are the giant companies, both private and public, and then there are the municipally owned companies, while at the other extreme there is a large number of very small operators some of whom own only one or two coaches.

I have few adverse comments to make about the larger operators. I am generally satisfied with their standards of maintenance, because they employ large numbers of people maintaining their fleets of vehicles. I am satisfied with the way in which they arrange the hours within which their drivers work, because there is usually strict enforcement. However, I have some reservations about the way in which some smaller companies operate. The companies that I have dealt with in my experience have been satisfactory in this respect, but there are some operators—indeed, more than a few—who would cause me and others some concern.

Mr. Fry

I am following with interest what the hon. Gentleman has said describing the differences between the large and small operators. Has he any statistics to back up his comments about the small operators? I think he would be the first to agree that the majority are running good businesses and that their vehicles are well maintained.

Mr. George

I said that I believe the majority of them are operating in a reasonable manner, but I am concerned about a minority, although not an insignificant minority, of cases. Many of the small companies are non-unionised, though that is no concern of this legislation. Many of them are not operating with a satisfactory degree of maintenance, for a number of reasons. One reason is that if it is a one-man operation he wants to keep the vehicle on the road for as long as possible, so that there may be a tendency to neglect maintenance.

The major criticism is often in the number of hours that the driver is working, chiefly in the summer season. There is an enormous demand for coaches, particularly in the London area, and stricter legislation on drivers' hours is likely to push up the costs. Therefore, in some cases—and I am being careful in what I say; hon. Members can draw their own conclusions about the extent—drivers are encouraged by their employers to work more than the maximum number of permitted hours. Having some experience from the outside of the industry when I am driving past a private coach late at night, I try to keep a fair distance between my car and the coach because when I am passing it I wonder how long the driver has been on the road. He could be on the road far longer than the legal maximum, and this constitutes a great hazard both to the passengers in the vehicle and to other road users. In some cases, therefore, the laws are being openly flouted.

There should be far more spot checks on the number of hours that drivers work and on the standard of maintenance. One may say that it is not feasible to stop a coach on its way to Stratford or Blackpool and give it a protracted check because the passengers would regard that as an infringement of their personal liberty and it would delay them getting to their destination. Nevertheless would it not be possible to have more spot checking when coaches arrive at their destinations? In the summer season many coaches are parked in municipal car parks in the major tourist centres, and I should like there to be far more checks so that more statistics of the kind required by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) could be provided. That is certainly feasible.

Another cause for some anxiety, which is linked to the matters I have already raised, is the way in which some coach companies will at weekends use drivers who have already reached or even exceeded their maximum number of hours in other employment. Thus, a driver who has reached his maximum during his working week, say as a lorry driver, may well be hired by a small operator to drive a party to the coast. That may be against the law—it probably is—but I know that it does happen, and in my view the passengers are put at risk because the driver has been at a wheel—not the same wheel—for far too long. As I say, this certainly gives me cause for concern.

Plainly, we must be concerned about safety, but the public often have to make a choice. If they want cheapness, perhaps they will be prepared to tolerate the continuation of a system which I regard with some disfavour, indeed anxiety, with small coach companies operating within a fiercely competitive trade trying to get as much work out of their drivers as possible. They do not always employ two drivers on one long journey because that would obviously put up the cost.

It has been suggested that it is possible to have two coaches going from A to B with reserve drivers on, and then they could cross over coaches at the point of arrival and drive the coaches back. But, as I understand it—I may be contradicted here—they cannot have a reserve driver going, say, to Blackpool and then crossing over within the same coach. That may be an anomaly, or I may be wrong, in which case I apologise, but I should like to hear an explanation at some later stage.

Although we are rightly concerned with safety, the public have to decide between alternatives, and the Government have to make a choice, too. If people want cheapness, they will tolerate the present system and the closing of eyes to the law. There cannot be absolute safety, but if we want as much safety as possible, the price must unfortunately be paid, and that payment will have to be made from one's wallet or purse.

5.32 p.m.

Mr. Hamish Watt (Banff)

Although there may be one or two good points in the Bill, it has none the less been hanging like the sword of Damocles over the whole transport system of the North of Scotland, and I hope to show the House in only a few minutes why this has been so.

No one condones any operator who seeks to run his business with insufficiently maintained vehicles. Nevertheless, the Bill will do untold damage in the North of Scotland. First, I refer to the effect which it will have on the haulier of livestock in my area in the North. Hon. Members have spoken of such places as Blackpool and Stratford-on-Avon, all very far south from us. In Scotland, we are more concerned with the distance between Inverness and Carlisle or between Aberdeen and Manchester. When I remind the House that the distance from Aberdeen to Manchester is no less than 368 miles, far in excess of the distances to be allowed under the Bill, hon. Members will see what I mean.

In the North-East of Scotland, from very early in the morning, hauliers go round the farms picking up loads of lambs, or hoggets, as they are known at this time of year, and there may be as many as four or five different collecting points. At each one the lorry will pick up its load of sheep, taking up to about 40 minutes, and then continue on with its load of live animals all the way to Manchester. The House must understand that it is impossible to do that within the hours stipulated.

Moreover, there is a problem peculiar to our unique situation as it affects the sheep markets in the extreme North of Scotland in the area of Wick and Thurso. The sheep are taken to market by various means, often by tractor-trailers driven by the farmers themselves, and as the stock are collected and bought by farmers from the South, transport has then to be arranged. Many of the sheep will have been collected from the hills up to three days before being taken to market. It is essential that these young beasts are taken to their destination as quickly as possible, and for this purpose lorries must come from the South to take the loads back.

When he sets out in the morning, a farmer has no way of knowing that he will be able to purchase a load of lambs. It will depend entirely on the prices pertaining at the market. But let us say that by midday a farmer who has travelled overnight from Aberdeen to Thurso knows that he will get more or less the load of lambs he wants. He at once telephones his haulier in the Aberdeen area, 274 miles away. He makes his telephone call for a lorry to be sent for his load of 200, 300 or 400 lambs, whatever it may be, and he says "Let us make sure we get them home tonight, if possible, because the lambs are very tired". We are thus talking about a double distance of 274 miles. How can any haulier do that under the regulations proposed? I recognise that this applies to only a limited period during the year, and I ask for a derogation covering 16 weeks to meet these unique circumstances.

I turn next to another trade, the hauling of mature pigs down to Carlisle, for example. This trade goes on throughout the year, but the circumstances are much the same. There may be as many as 10 pickup points in the morning before the lorry can get on the road, and it is vital that the pigs reach the slaughterhouse in Carlisle or wherever it may be with minimum loss of weight and minimum upset.

It must not be forgotten that a haulier of livestock cannot travel at speeds possible for the haulier of deadstock. He has to give his animals a careful journey, and he has to give them that careful journey on winding and narrow roads. There are no motorways north of Perth, and we have distances of 274 miles north of Perth. The House must appreciate the unique needs of the North of Scotland in this respect. I could give other illustrations from the business of livestock haulage, but I hope that I have said enough to establish my point.

I turn next to another industry of importance in the North of Scotland, the whisky industry. The Customs and Excise regulations require that no whisky carried on lorries may lie out in a car park or lorry park at any time. It must be within bond. Therefore, it is essential that the whisky which is picked up on Speyside in the morning is delivered to bond at Greenock, Paisley, Perth or wherever it may be in the evening. Again, there may be several pick-up points. If we are to have a decent blend of whisky, there may be as many as four or five different kinds picked up by a lorry from various distilleries, and it is impossible for the driver to reach the Customs and Excise compound within the hours proposed.

The drivers themselves as well as the transport operators are greatly concerned. I was at the staff dance of one transport firm only last Saturday night, and just about every driver of the 20 employed there came to me to express great concern about the way these regulations will affect drivers in the North of Scotland.

Finally, on the question of the age of drivers, I draw another special circumstance to the attention of the House, and here I refer to the remote hotel. The business of remote hotels is usually seasonal, and most of their staff are students. As such a hotel is often a long distance from a railhead, it is commonly necessary that the hotel minibus, carrying 12 or 14 people, be driven by the only person available, and that is a student. Yet here we have this blanket legislation, legislating perfectly well for areas with motorways and legislating perfectly well, no doubt, for the EEC, but totally inapplicable to the special circumstances which obtain throughout the North of Scotland.

Is it not surprising that so many people in Scotland dislike the EEC because of the blanket legislation that stems from it? In the framing of legislation I hope that the Minister will take special care to cover the circumstances of those who live in remote areas.

5.40 p.m.

Mr. Marks

I am grateful for the general support which has been voiced for the Bill. It is understandable that hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber have taken the opportunity to widen considerably the range of the debate, and in other instances to narrow it considerably. It is important that the House should have knowledge of what legislation means at the grass roots.

The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) spoke about people without PSV licences driving very heavy vehicles. In some cases they are allowed to do so because there is no hire or reward. That is something that we must examine, but we must remember that many people go to work in Public service vehicles that are not driven by someone in possession of a PSV licence. Many industrial firms get their people to work by such means. That is one of the matters that we shall be examining in the transport review.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) for his support for the Bill. We recognise that there is a need for more flexibility in European legislation. I understand the difficulties that will be faced by heavy goods vehicle operators and manufacturers in the interim period between 1st January and Royal Assent. The answer must lie in the Bill receiving a rapid passage in Committee and a speedy process to Royal Assent.

I spoke at some length about minibuses in an Adjournment debate. I was flattered to learn that certain organisations had reprinted my speech. That was done by the National Association of Youth Clubs. The Association held a conference on the basis of the debate. Since the 1930s the law has been clear on this matter. If charges are made in respect of a vehicle carrying a number of passengers, a licence is required for the driver.

Various organisations have found ways of tackling the problem. Many teachers and others have taken the PSV test. Headmasters who have teachers who regularly drive minibuses should consider that possibility. It is a possibility that is open to various organisations. In the meantime, the Department is prepared to help any organisation which is uncertain of the path that it should take. We shall give all the help that we can to voluntary organisations and others.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) spoke of the anxieties about the Regulations that are felt in other countries. It is true that anxieties are widespread. A number of measures have been taken in conjunction with our European neighbours.

Mr. Frank Tomney (Hammersmith, North)

There is a file on my desk which interests me greatly which refers to EEC Regulations concerning intercontinental traffic and what are described as juggernauts. It is the first time that I have met the problem that arises from the issuing of licences and permits by Customs authorities both here and on the Continent. There seems to be something of a racket—this does not involve the Customs authorities—which enables unscrupulous drivers to exchange and obtain Customs clearance documents for lorries to which they have no entitlement. This applies especially to Germany and France. This is a matter that should be examined carefully in the general survey that the Department is about to undertake. The result of the racket is that hard-working small companies are being forced out of business. They are not able to obtain permits, while large companies have access to them.

Mr. Marks

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We are aware of this problem and there have been a number of Questions and Answers related to it. We are anxious that more of our operators should obtain permits. At the same time, we can understand the concern that is felt in the countries involved about the through-traffic which sometimes travels through two or three countries.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields spoke of the need to support other European countries which want flexibility. Our transport industry and the trade unions through their own channels in the EEC, and through the Joint Advisory Committee on Social Questions, are putting forward a similar point of view.

The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) spoke of the clause dealing with the place of prosecution. In the past the police have had to travel tremendous distances at times to provide evidence at a prosecution. If the Bill becomes law they will have the opportunity of having the evidence taken at the place where the offence is discovered.

The hon. Member for Wellingborough made a number of points which he said we should put forward at the EEC. A note has been taken of the various matters that he raised.

The hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) can say that his constituency was among the few counties, if I may use that expression for his area, which opposed entry to the EEC. Perhaps he is entitled, as few others are, to criticise our entry. I should emphasise that the Bill gives approval for the Secretary of State to introduce new Regulations should we have better Regulations coming from the EEC.

My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) spoke of the need to safeguard standards of safety among some operators. I appreciate the difficulties of enforcement. We are examining coach safety and the construction of coaches with our European neighbours.

The hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Watt) spoke of the practical problems of restricting hours of work in isolated areas and areas where livestock is transported. However, we must remember that men get tired as well as lambs. We must appreciate all the problems and we must safeguard against exploitation.

I am grateful for the interest of those who have attended the debate. Many of the matters that have been raised will be discussed further in the next few months. I look forward to meeting hon. Members from both sides of the Chamber in Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).