HC Deb 31 July 1978 vol 955 cc180-211

10.37 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. William Rodgers)

I beg to move, That the draft Drivers' Hours (Harmonisation with Community Rules) Regulations 1978, which were laid before this House on 17th July, be approved. I understand that it is generally agreed that it would be for the convenience of the House to discuss at the same time the following motion: That the draft Community Road Transport Rules (Exemptions) Regulations, which were laid before this House on 3rd July, be approved. It was said by Lord Palmerston of the Schleswig-Holstein question that there were only three men who ever understood it: One was Prince Albert, who was dead; the second was a German professor, who was mad; and he was the third, and he had forgotten all about it. I am tempted, if this is not presumptuous, to cast myself in the role of Lord Palmerston this evening, reluctant only because I should have to assign to the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) the role of the mad professor.

It is not proper for Ministers to confess ignorance at the Dispatch Box. Perhaps I may profess a qualified ignorance, which implies a qualified knowledge. These regulations are exceedingly complex. Indeed, I have much sympathy with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis) earlier this evening when he referred to the need to have consultants to unravel the complexities of the law. I think that is right. Were it not for the need to put a number of matters on the record tonight, I would not detain the House with a long speech. Nevertheless, I do not intend to do so. If the hon. Member for Wellingborough has a number of questions to ask—that would be fully understood—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will do his very best to answer them in due course.

As the House knows, we are concerned primarily with EEC regulation 543 of 1969 and aspects of it. There are three aspects: first, the extent to which it is applicable to the United Kingdom following the lengthy and laborious negotiations which were effectively completed at the Council on 27th October last and debated in the House on 1st February; secondly, the consequences for existing United Kingdom legislation, which is part of our debate tonight; and, thirdly, the question of the exemptions which we have been able to secure as a result of our discussions with the Commission. The first of these points having already been dealt with, we are concerned with the consequences for existing United Kingdom legislation and with the exemptions.

The harmonisation regulations are designed to make detailed amendments to the already complicated code in the Transport Act 1968, which has already been amended by subsequent orders and Acts. But these changes are necessary to fit in with the EEC regulation, which now applies to much of our domestic traffic. The overall aim, which I am confident these regulations will achieve, is to make matters simpler for drivers and operators. These two sets of regulations will, I hope, bring to an end a period of unique uncertainty for the British road transport industry. I pay tribute to the industry for the way in which it has managed through this period.

At the beginning of the year, the European Community rules which control the hours and rest periods of goods and passenger vehicle drivers and which had applied to our international traffic since April 1973 came into force for domestic traffic in this country.

Limits on the number of hours drivers may remain on duty, or drive, have been imposed here by statute for a number of years. The most recent comprehensive enactment was the Transport Act 1968. The EEC regulation represents no new departure of principle. But the terms of the EEC rules are—not surprisingly—rather different from our own earlier controls.

Regulation no. 543/69 was agreed by the original six members of the Community in 1969. The United Kingdom had no part in formulating the regulation—if it had, circumstances might have been different—but we accepted it on accession to the Community. Under the terms of the Treaty of Accession, it has applied to United Kingdom vehicles engaged on internaional journeys since April 1973. However, for purely domestic traffic, the treaty provided that it should not become effective until 1st January 1976. The Commission was given powers to defer this date up to but not beyond the end of 1977—for two years—if it could be proved that implementation would have adverse effects.

The Government were able to persuade the Commission to use these powers, and we secured a series of deferments up to the end of last year. During this time, following difficult negotiations at official level and finally in the Council of Ministers in October last year—I refer to the negotiations which were completed on 27th October—we managed to secure a number of modifications to the regulation itself. The most important of these has enabled us to phase in the more restrictive provisions over a three-year transitional period.

We gave statutory force to those phasing provisions in regulations, which were debated in the House on 1st February. Therefore, although the EEC rules came into force for most domestic traffic in this country from the beginning of 1978, their full impact will not be felt until 1st January 1981. We have done as well as we could in these difficult circumstances.

The purpose of the Drivers' Hours (Harmonisation with Community Rules) Regulations 1978 is to make our existing national law compatible with the EEC rules. This is inescapable for several reasons.

As I said earlier, the EEC regulation effectively replaced the corresponding provisions of the 1968 Act for all the vehicles within its scope. But the way in which the two codes overlap at present is untidy and to that extent unsatisfactory.

It has been put to me in the strongest terms that this calls for the simple remedy of repealing the 1968 Act provision in the case of drivers subject to the EEC rules. An Opposition amendment to this effect was put down in Committee on the current Transport Bill but was rejected by the House.

I have given serious thought to this matter, particularly in the light of comments made by the employers when the draft harmonisation regulations were circulated for consultation, but I have decided that it would be wrong to repeal these provisions, for two main reasons. The existence of limits on duty and spreadover provide an important protection for drivers. This protection has been enjoyed for a number of years, and there is no justification for removing it now. In addition, under the terms of the amending EEC regulation which provided for the phased introduction of the EEC rules in this country, it was expressly stipulated that phased introduction of the EEC rules should in no way cause any regression, by comparison with what had already been achieved by individual member States—and this was much—in terms of social protection.

I regard those two considerations as important and overriding, and I have therefore decided that the 1968 duty limits should be kept alongside the EEC rules. The harmonisation regulations make this quite clear and make adjustments to the relevant 1968 provisions so that they are compatible with the EEC rules.

The second reason for the harmonisation regulations is to cater for drivers who switch between different types of work. Though in practice most drivers will not be affected, since their work patterns are stable, it is necessary to make provision for those who work for part of their time under the EEC rules and for part of their time outside their scope. Drivers who are not covered by the EEC rules will remain, as before, subject to the Transport Act.

The third reason for these regulations is to deal with international work. Once the phasing-in modifications have been completed, the EEC rules will be the same for both international and national work. Nevertheless, the practice of ignoring the 1968 limits for international work is now well established and I have decided, therefore, that it would be unnecessary and in no one's interest to change practices in this area now. In view of this, the harmonisation regulations have been drafted to preserve the position of international drivers as far as posible.

Finally on these regulations, I recognise that in an area such as this it is not realistic to expect every individual driver or employer to try to understand the statutory regulations. If we do not do so in the House, how can we expect others readily to do so? My Department is therefore preparing a comprehensive guide—one might call it a layman's guide—which will be issued when the regulations come into force. I hope that this will enable all those concerned to understand as fully and precisely as possible the rules which apply to their own individual case. If, from experience, this can be improved, we shall do our very best to do so, and I hope that hon. Members who have any comments to make on the guide or who have any comments passed to them will let me have them.

I turn briefly to the Community Road Transport Rules (Exemption) Regulations. This is the second group of regulations that we are cosidering this evening. The purpose of the regulations, which are made under section 2 of the European Communities Act, is to give statutory effect to certain exemptions from the EEC rules which have been agreed with the European Commission. In addition to exemptions from the drivers' hours rules, the regulations also cover certain associated exemptions from the tachograph regulation, and that is regulation 1463/70. As the House will know, the regulation is currently the subject of proceedings before the European Court, and in those circumstances I should prefer not to refer to it in more detail.

The power to obtain exemptions or derogations is set out in article 14a of EEC regulation 543/69 which I have been discussing, and the article sets out specific and prescribed exemptions. Under the terms of article 14a, certain of the exemptions may be implemented after consultation with the Commission, whilst others require specific authorisation from the Commission. Our approach to exemptions has been to seek the maximum permitted by the article under both categories. Our negotiations with the Commission were largely successful and, subject to certain provisions with regard to the transport of milk, we have managed to secure all that was possible.

As I said at the beginning, the regulations before the House today represent collectively the end of a unique period of uncertainty for the transport industry. When regulation 543/69 came into force in January, the last-minute decisions from the Commission on the transitional modifications, together with the need to act quickly to implement them, left no time to tidy up the loose ends we are now considering.

In introducing the EEC rules at that time, I announced that there would be a six-month running-in period for the enforcement of the rules to enable the industry to adjust. I also made clear on another occasion that I should not want anybody to change operating practices in respect of those vehicles and purposes for which derogation or exemption from the EEC rules was possible. Apart from the extension in connection with the 450-km. daily distance limits, the running-in period of enforcement is now formally over and it is particularly important that the law should be clear and that the industry should be allowed to settle down.

Both sets of regulations remove outstanding uncertainty. I am sure that everyone will agree that, whatever criticisms may be levelled at them in detail, the prospect of a further period of confusion is not something which any of us could want.

Mr. John Evans (Newton)

My right hon. Friend refers to the necessity of avoiding confusion. I think that we all fully agree with him. He has said that he has sought the maximum possible exemptions, and there has been exemption concerning minibuses or minicoaches and the installation of the tachograph. Does the lack of necessity for a tachograph to be fitted in a minicoach apply to journeys in this country only or does it include journeys on the Continent?

Mr. Rodgers

There is a distinction here between journeys within the United Kingdom and journeys on the Continent. My hon. Friend puts his finger on a very important point. I think that there have been some misunderstandings about the extent to which the law has lately been changed and the extent to which the law was not enforced for Continental journeys in the past. If there is some other point that my hon. Friend has in mind which I have missed, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under Secretary will refer to it in his winding-up speech.

I think that we have succeeded in obtaining, with one possible exception, as many exemptions as were possible.

I say sincerely that we have appreciated the very close consultation that we have had with the industry throughout this period. It may not have been easy for us from time to time, but it was far more difficult for the industry, both in dealing with the uncertainty and in giving advice of a kind which was relevant and which would be effective. Although I cannot say that the industry has in all respects been satisfied or pleased, I can for my own part say that I am grateful to the industry for the speed and consideration with which those concerned have reacted to the problems that we placed before them in very difficult circumstances.

I said at the beginning that we inherited regulation no. 543/69 when we became members of the Community. It was not renegotiated at that time, nor was it subject to renegotiation before the referendum. This was our choice, and I do not think that we can honestly complain to others about it. It is a price that we paid—if one cares to put it that way—for our membership. Whether our membership is right or wrong, that is the reality which we have faced.

As full members of the Community, however, we are wholly entitled to seek to change the regulations in due course. That has always been by view. It is the view which we must have as members of the Community. It would be unrealistic to believe that we can do so quickly or in the near future. For one thing, I think that there was scepticism about our intention of implementing the regulation, and I think that we must probably wait until the end of the period of three years before our good faith has been wholly demonstrated to the satisfaction of others. But I certainly believe that when the regulation is fully implemented we should seek every opportunity to change it, if that is right.

As far as I am concerned, I shall certainly remain vigilant about the prospect of change, and I shall seek to renegotiate at the right time, both in the proper interests of this country and in the spirit of the Community.

10.53 p.m.

Mr. Peter Fry (Wellingborough)

I do not know how far the Secretary of State wants to identify himself with the late Lord Palmerston. Perhaps I may remind the right hon. Gentleman that when Lord Palmerston sired an illegitimate child at the age of 80 it was just before a General Election, and the Opposition kept it quiet because they were terrified that he would sweep the country. He was obviously a very colourful character, who said a great many things which could mean different things to different people.

However, I should like first to declare an indirect interest in this matter. I was delighted that the Secretary of State started his remarks with an admission of its complexity. There can be very few hon. Members or other people who can consider themselves totally familiar with all the intricacies of these regulations. It is hardly surprising that Mr. lain Sherriff. the editor of Commercial Motor, had this to say: Members of the House of Lords and Commons will demonstrate an unusual level of comprehension if they fully understand the draft regulations on drivers' hours which await their approval. If the Parliamentarians cannot understand them, what chance the average operator, traffic clerk or driver? That is quite true.

We have not stayed here late simply to congratulate the Secretary of State on his grasp of the intricacies of the regulations or to praise him for obtaining a three-year period of implementation—or even for the exemptions he has provided under his powers of derogation. These were the very minimum needed to bring some order into a chaotic situation.

If anyone doubts that it has been a chaotic situation, I would ask him to consider that separate regulations, or continuations of these regulations, apply in different ways to the following: first, international journeys; second, journeys which are part international and part national; third, national journeys which are totally subject to regulation 543: fourth, national journeys which are partly subject to regulation 543; fifth, national journeys which are totally outside regulation 543; and sixth, national journeys which relate to passenger rather than commercial vehicle movements. Anyone who doubted the complexity of the matter should now have second thoughts. If anyone can put the two sets of regulations into plain English, I am sure that the Secretary of State would like him to prepare the handbook which is to be produced.

It is not surprising that the matter is complicated, because many Commission documents can raise a smile. For example, the Commission's opinion, dated 30th June 1978, which comments on the exemptions in the Community regulations, says: In respect of the exemption from Regulation (EEC) No. 1463/70 on vehicles undergoing local road tests for purposes of repair or maintenance, the Commission is of opinion that these vehicles must be fitted with recording equipment (tachograph) if they are registered after 1st January 1976. However, since these vehicles are driven during the test by driver mechanics who do not habitually drive them, it does not seem reasonable to require them to operate the recording equipment. In other words, one must go to the bother of fitting a tachograph, but then it need not be used. I wonder whether the Secretary of State will take that line in his dealings with the EEC over this difficult matter.

The present difficulties have been exacerbated by some other intriguing aspects of this complicated story. At the end of the Department's supplementary note on the regulations, there is a list of no fewer than 27 Acts, regulations, orders, decisions and opinions relating to drivers' hours and records. Furthermore, in an attempt to be helpful, the Department concerned finds it necessary to offer yet further advice, explanations and instructions, so that documents are pouring upon the industry at a rate comparable only to Government promises and policy statements before a General Election. The poor haulier is not finding it easy to keep up with the enormous amount that he has to read, absorb and act upon. At the same time he is trying to earn a living.

There is a further rather annoying point. If I am wrong about this I shall gladly withdraw it, but I have been informed that the Department has considerably reshuffled the personnel responsible for dealing with drivers' hours. This caused at least one bus operator to wonder when talking to the Department's officials who was guiding whom through the labyrinth of the regulations.

These extra factors would all be laughable if we were dealing with some kind of farce lampooning bureaucracy, but we are talking about one of the country's essential industries. The transport industry, in its efforts to cope with these regulations, has at times felt that it has been having a nightmare. That is bad enough for a large concern that can afford to take on a skilled, perhaps technical, staff to try to unravel the regulations and give advice, or for the firm that can easily take the excellent advice proffered by the trade associations. It will be well nigh impossible for the owner driver, who still constitutes a considerable part of the haulage industry in this country, to keep within the regulations without breaking one or other of them.

I accept that the Secretary of State inherited this very difficult situation. I cannot think of anybody who would want to be responsible for having created it. Therefore, all of us should have sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman for having to deal with it. I accept that he has spent much time trying to be helpful to the industry in some of the changes that he has tried to bring about. I do not think that this is the time to discuss the disadvantages or advantages of EEC membership. The proper course is to assess the present position regarding the regulations and to see how we can progress from here.

I shall devote most of my speech to asking a series of questions that I hope that the Under-Secretary will answer in due course, if not tonight. I turn first to the order on harmonisation. No fewer than 27 different pieces of legislation will clearly present a great mass of detail for the haulage operator. I should have thought that this made it quite clear that some degree of codification and consolidation was needed. There are difficulties about that because EEC law is separate from ours. I hope that something constructive will happen soon to make life simpler for the operators, even if it is only that a booklet is issued and then the authorities stay silent for a while so that operators can become accustomed to the mass of detail which has been issued already, and it should not be frequently altered as time passes.

I was fascinated to read what the Government spokesman—or should I say "spokeswoman"?—in the other place, Baroness Stedman, said: from the point of view of the individual driver or operator, the effect of the regulations will be relatively straightforward. I do not know whether that means that it will drive him straight into bankruptcy or into the madhouse, but I should have thought that the regulations were much too complicated for such a person readily to understand. She went on to say: the Department of Transport will be issuing comprehensive guidance…when the regulations are made."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26th July 1978; Vol. 395, c. 894.] I was delighted to hear the Secretary of State reiterate that tonight. Comprehensive guidance will no doubt be needed. This single work of reference will be of great advantage to all concerned.

My second point on harmonisation goes back to the point that the Secretary of State made about removing the effects of section 96 of the 1968 Act. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is aware that his Department, and, indeed, almost everybody else up until the hour of midnight in relation to the original coming into force of these regulations, was under the impression that section 96 no longer applied. What upset many people in the industry was the feeling that they had been led up the garden path. I am not blaming the Secretary of State, because these people were proffered certain advice and felt that with section 96 removed they would be able to cope with some of the more adverse effects of EEC Council regulation No. 543. Now they are worried that they are to be subject to the effects of both. The Secretary of State has had a letter in very strong terms from the British Association of Removers on this point. The letter was dated 21st July.

However, I note what the Secretary of State said about why he cannot accept the removal of section 96, and I put this question to him. Does he honestly think that if he had proceeded along that line lorry drivers would suddenly have been worked like slaves, leading terrible lives, with employers taking tremendous advantage of it? I cannot believe that, with champions such as the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis) and with the might of the Transport and General Workers' Union behind him, the lorry driver would have had anything to fear on that score.

Before the Secretary of State and the Government came to their decision not to remove the effects of section 96 of the 1968 Act, did they have any discussions with the Transport and General Workers' Union? What were the views of the union, and was any pressure applied by it? Even after listening to the right hon. Gentleman tonight, I feel that very little damage would have been caused by the removal of this dual responsibility in respect of driving hours and the duty day. That view is heavily reinforced by the Road Haulage Association, which made clear in a letter to me that it thought that this was the ideal time to simplify the legislation by divorcing the two parts, EEC regulation 543 and the 1968 Act, from each other.

Through the Secretary of State's decision and his intention to take no action in relation to international movements, we seem to have left ourselves in a very odd situation. If the right hon. Gentleman wished to be completely consistent, he would have applied section 96 to international movements. He ought at least to have tried to put all transport movements on all fours. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will tell us something about that.

I draw attention now to page 5 of the harmonisation regulations, where one finds perhaps the most important point of detail which should be put to the Government. Paragraph (8)(iii)(a) of regulation 4—anybody listening will at once realise how complicated the whole thing is—refers to what is, in effect, the institution of the rolling week. It defines a working week as any period of seven consecutive days"— This change will cause considerable problems not only for the haulage industry but for passenger transport as well, the bus and long-distance coach sector.

Previously, the only way to maintain complicated commercial vehicle schedules and passenger journeys, especially over the busiest parts of the year, was to use the seven-day fixed week. It enabled one to have a spread-over of duties which seemed to work satisfactorily and it gave a flexibility of operation which was for the benefit of the consumer, the manufacturer and the traveller. Indeed, many of the seaside excursions so beloved by our constituents will become much more expensive, or even impossible, if we move towards the concept of the rolling week. I believe that the new definition— any period of seven consecutive days will not only prove expensive but may lead to a cut-back in some of the services which are at present enjoyed.

Are the Government aware of the seriousness of the problem? Do they understand how costly will be the outcome? The costs will be transferred straight away to the users of transport and, as I have already said, some bus operations may well have to be reduced.

It has been said that the rolling week means that there are 365 rolling weeks in a year, since each day starts a seven-day period. In a leap year there are 366 days. That indicates how difficult it is to arrange new schedules and to arrange rotas. I hope that we shall hear some encouraging words from the Under-Secretary on that.

Mr. John Ellis (Brigg and Scunthorpe)

Now that the hon. Gentleman has said all that about the complexities—365 days in a year and 366 in a leap year—does he consider it practicable or possible that we can do what is proposed? He seems to have made out a case that it is impossible to work any kind of logical system. Yet we are stuck with the Common Market again. Is it possible to get out of it?

Mr. Fry

I never know whether the hon. Gentleman's comments on the subject are intended to be helpful or totally destructive. I sometimes think that the union he represents takes a line on the EEC regulations that it wants them to be almost impossible so that the whole thing will be discredited. I do not know whether that is true, but it is my impression.

I was heartened by what the Secretary of State said about future negotiations. I believe that we shall have a period of great difficulty. It may be necessary to go back earlier than the end of the three-year period purely because of the problems that arise from the rolling week. It is all very well saying that we shall be good Europeans at a time when we are being hauled before the European Court. That is a problem that the Secretary of State will have to overcome.

In the exemption regulations there are some matters of rather more detail to which I should like to refer quickly. The first relates to the exemption for vehicles constructed to carry not more than 15 persons, including the driver. It is felt, particularly by many of the smaller bus operators, that this could constitute very serious competition. The great mass of private operators—I am not talking about the National Bus Company—make their profit by running excursions to the seaside, the theatre and a whole range of events. If by making this exemption we bring about a rash of small vehicles, that could be dangerous for the long-term viability of those operators. Secondly, I understand from the accident statistics that more people are liable to be injured than would be injured if they were carried in the more traditional coach.

The industry asks why the figure of 15 was plucked from the air and on what basis it was agreed. Further, it makes the important point that here we have an example of what appears to be a clear distinction between passenger movement and goods movement. The industry finds this surprising because hitherto in the negotiations on the regulations there has not been the acceptance that there has been traditionally in this country that we need a different set of regulations for passenger and commercial vehicles.

Therefore, there is a gleam of light. If we have this concession over the 15 seats, is there any hope of our persuading the EEC that we have been more sensible all along in having different sets of regulations for two kinds of vehicles?

While I am on the subject of passenger transport, may I refer to a matter that will cause considerable concern—the keeping of the records that will be required under the regulations. I know that the Department is already trying to be helpful. It is producing a somewhat simplified form. There is, however, a world of difference between a lorry which is driven by one driver perhaps most of the year and a bus, which can have perhaps three or four drivers in a journey, let alone in a day, all of whom must try to keep very complicated records. Because of that difference, I hope that the Government will look closely again at the question of record-keeping, particularly in relation to passenger transport, and see how they can be helpful.

Some of the exemptions have proved to be very satisfactory. The milk industry in particular is glad about the exemption that it has received, although it must be renegotiated by 31st December next year. The fact that this special position for milk has to be renegotiated raises an issue of great significance. If the Government have to go back and talk about milk movements next year, why cannot they also discuss some of the other things mentioned tonight?

Let me list some of the anomalies that arise. The National Federation of Fruit and Potato Merchants makes the point that traditional market patterns in this country will be considerably disrupted by the 50-km. radius rule. Many merchants need much more than that for the most efficient distribution of produce. A figure of 200 km. has been suggested. I know that that raises difficulties for the Government, but it relates to our traditional patterns of distribution and it is something of which they should take note.

There are also some rather silly anomalies. For example, if there is a car factory with plants on either side of a main road and men spend most of their time driving half-finished or finished vehicles from one side of the road to the other, the greater part of their time is not spent on the roads at all. Yet those workers come fully within the EEC regulations. Similarly, there are workers who use tippers on building sites or roadworks. They run for a small part of the day on the road. They will be able to benefit only from the four-hour exemption. In that case, an eight-hour exemption should be the norm.

I think I have said enough for the Government to realise that, while we acknowledge that progress has been made, there is much that needs to be done. Whoever negotiates for the Government must not rest on his laurels. This legislation was, before the introduction of the orders, a great mess. I give the Government credit for trying to tidy up the situation to some extent. It still remains a mass of confusing regulations, containing anomalies and some harmful provisions. Orderly clarification is demanded and further negotiations are needed as soon as possible.

There is a strong feeling that we in this country try to adhere to the letter of the law. That has been the history of the transport industry. It is felt sometimes that, with some of our EEC partners, it is the spirit rather than the letter of the law which is observed. There is, perhaps, a difference in interpretation. This gives rise to the sort of feeling displayed in a letter which the NFU wrote to me today. It is worried that, by sticking to the 1968 Act together with the EEC regulations, we shall make it more disadvantageous to move animals and foodstuffs in this country. If the Secretary of State remains firm in his view that he will do nothing to remove the effects of section 96 of the 1968 Act, a great responsibility will lie upon him. If there are no further exemptions or amendments, we shall be the losers. The losses will mount up, in reduced passenger services and increased haulage costs. Ultimately the public pays.

We acknowledge that it is better to approve these regulations because without them the situation would be even worse, but we cannot give unqualified approval to all that the Secretary of State has done and is doing. If we had to mark his report at the end of this Session on the question of drivers' hours, we would say that he has tried but needs to do more. Perhaps he will not be the person who does the renegotiation in the immediate future. I hope that it will be my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler). If by any chance this Parliament staggers on beyond autumn as a result of some wonderful alliance, I must tell the Secretary of State that we do not regard these regulations as the end of his or the Government's responsibility on this vexed question. It is clearly in our national interest to negotiate further and support the British transport industry.

11.20 p.m.

Mr. John Ellis (Brigg and Scunthorpe)

Listening to the speech of the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry), especially to his peroration, was an appalling experience. All the way through he burked the main issue, which is why we have arrived in this position, with unsatisfactory and complicated legislation.

I had intended to refer to paragraph 5 of the harmonisation regulations concerning the different conditions as between a vehicle with a bunk and one that has no bunk. I thought it uncivilised that in this day and age men should be expected to sleep in their place of work. Nowhere else is such a condition apparent in the transport industry.

I intended to offer some remarks pointing out that the Transport and General Workers' Union does not believe in cabs with bunks and thinks that they are unnecessary. We thought that we should be able to persuade other unions, even elsewhere in the EEC, to say that it was a mistake to go on investing in and making vehicles like that. But I changed my mind. I think that we need vehicles as big as this, not necessarily in order to carry a second driver but in order to carry the adviser or the lawyer who will have to interpret the position that we are in.

The hon. Member for Wellingborough had the audacity to suggest that the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) might be in a position to improve this legislation. I do not care who holds office; the problems of this legislation will go on. Unless there is a combination of genius and God in an attempt to do anything about it, the ramifications will be with us for a very long time.

What are the facts? A little group of bureaucrats got together and decided that they would harmonise all the various conditions all over the countries they represented. They worked out a scheme, and year by year even those who believed in the Common Market had to put it off. When we came to the end of last year—I do not know whether there was a bust-up, or whatever—no agreement could be reached. In effect, they then agreed that the whole thing would come in at the beginning of this year.

We now have a marvellous situation, in which the Secretary of State has to come rushing to the House at least to try to get things into some kind of order by getting wholesale delegation, saying that there are still certain things we have to pass. He says—and this happened on the last occasion—that even though we have to pass this thing, he will have a word with the chief constables and anyone else who enforces the law and say to them "Please don't do anything about it, because we are not in a position to advise people what the law is or where it is."

The hon. Member for Wellingborough talked about other countries that do not have our approach to the passing of law. The Conservative Front Bench should have thought of that before it took us galloping into this kind of absurd situation. Tonight, as on all these occasions, with perhaps not a lot of people interested, we see another important section of our lives being run not from this country but from Europe.

It is very wry for the hon. Member for Wellingborough to talk about the next General Election and who will win. In many areas it is an academic matter who wins, because increasingly the destiny of this country is not decided in this House at all. We do our best, and we send our Ministers to Europe. At least, the hon. Member is learning not to leap up to the Dispatch Box and attack the Minister for not doing as well as he might, because he realises that the travesty being perpetuated comes back to him too fast from Back Benchers who do not believe in the Common Market.

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)

Did my hon. Friend notice that another thing that the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Fry) said was that the industry looked for improvements? In view of reports in the press, could one of those be the 40-ton limit? Would it be reasonable to hear from the Minister whether he can bring in a 40-ton limit as a quid pro quo for any difficulties, without the permission of the House, and whether it is a derogation or a negative instrument?

Mr. Ellis

I hope that the Front Bench has heard those remarks. Perhaps the Under-Secretary, when he replies, will enlighten us further about the implications of these matters. It is a travesty when both Front Benches say that they do not really understand the order and make some reference to Palmerston. I suppose that is amusing—but I do not find it so. I find it tragic that Ministers and supposedly responsible Opposition spokesmen should make jokes about legislation that is of great concern to lorry drivers.

The hon. Member spoke about the rolling week. I asked him a question about this, and, in effect, he said that it was 365 days in a year and 366 in a leap year. This no joke at all, because it means that every time a driver gets into the cab he has to look a week ahead to see whether he is breaking the law. There is a change every time he gets into the cab every morning. It may be a joke for the hon. Member but certainly it is no joke for the Transport and General Workers' Union, which tries to be responsible in advising its members what to do in given situations.

The hon. Member for Wellingborough suggested that the union was perhaps not being helpful and that it was "kicking the Common Market. He can attribute what motives he likes. But we in the T and GWU sat down and discussed this measure for a long time with responsible officers and they felt that it was an unsatisfactory situation. Despite this, and despite the fact that they did not really understand it and felt that it was an impossible situation, the Minister had nevertheless managed to get some derogations that would make life a little easier. But life would be even more impossible than it is now if the regulations were not passed.

Therefore, although the T and GWU hopes that something can be done about the points of real difficulty, it does not want the House to throw out the regulations. At least in some limited areas they will not come into force with all their ramifications. That is a responsibe attitude in a body which could be far more bloody-minded, and, indeed, has every right to be.

In this industry with things of that sort happening it is not surprising that a few weeks ago I had to meet a deputation from Grimsby, as a result of the last debate. The employer there—I do not attribute any bad motives to him—had told his men that certain things would have to be changed. This would have led them a few miles up the road from the trip they do from Hull to Grimsby, across to Liverpool and back. There was great consternation. We had a strike on our hands. It was all about a misunderstanding, and perhaps at the end the nod and wink had not gone far enough. So these are very serious matters. This demonstrates the impossibility of the present situation.

I shall not oppose these provisions. I do not know what we can do about the situation, except to make clear to the Minister that the people who negotiated these provisions are in default. I suppose I could make the point that the only thing we can do is not to go on in the Common Market, but the serious point is to tell the Minister to go to the EEC people and tell them "We have made a pig's ear of this matter". They might then realise that we cannot go to the extreme of trying to harmonise everything in these wildly disparate circumstances.

However, I do not think there is any hope of arriving at a sensible arrangement. Therefore, I urge the Minister to issue a comprehensive document on the subject so that those who may be breaking the law will have some idea where they stand.

This is a dark day, and I believe this to have been one of the worst debates of its kind. It is a most complex matter and it is almost impossible to bring any sense into the subject. In terms of the Common Market, I believe that we have reached a new low point. We should carefully examine the reasons why we have got ourselves into this fatuous position.

11.32 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell (Down, South)

We are confronting tonight a classic example of the devastating effect of EEC harmonising legislation, especially when that legislation takes direct effect. After these regulations come into force, we shall have three subdivisions of "journeys" and "work"—international, national and domestic. Even that is confusing, because the word "domestic" is used in two distinct senses.

It may be that there was some justification for the attempt to harmonise the law within the Community relating to international journeys. There is not the faintest justification for the attempt to harmonise internal journeys in the respective countries of the Community. We have largely got into the present difficulty through the itch to harmonise in areas where harmony has nothing whatever to do with the basic purposes for which the Community exists. But in this case, worse than in many others, we do not even have the privilege of translating the harmonisation into our own law and we do not possess the brake which to some extent that places in the hands of this House.

This legislation took effect directly and resulted in what the Minister described as a period of unique uncertainty when two codes of law were in force simulta- neously, and we had to live with the difficulty for six months. We now have regulations which are an attempt to cauterise the stumps of our own legislation which are left over when the directly effective legislation of the Community has been imposed upon us.

The Minister said that he will produce a simple guide so far as possible to this whole mass of law involving United Kingdom and EEC legislation so that those who have to be bound by it may have some guide through the labyrinth. The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry), speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, was much more ambitious. He wanted codification and consolidation. It is one thing to talk about codifying and consolidating our own law, hut a very different matter to attempt to consolidate two different codes of law of different origins—and not merely of different origins but written in different language and interpretable by different conventions and, in the last resort, adjudicated upon by different courts. Therefore, let nobody suppose that we can iron this out by having a kind of consolidating Act which will put the EEC legislation and our own legislation together into one document.

There is the even greater irony that the exemptions from the EEC legislation, which takes direct effect, are produced by our own legislation, so that we have to make regulations under United Kingdom law in order to secure the benefit of derogations that derive from EEC law. That is the contradictory state of our law—a law to which we ought not to be subjecting our citizens—which flows from the directly effective harmonising legislation of the EEC, which, on top of all this, derives from EEC legislation made four years before we joined the Community and which derives from the utmost efforts that United Kingdom Ministers have made without a card in their hands.

The hon. Member for Wellingborough said that the Government had better start renegotiating and he thought that it was an opportunity for renegotiation when one of the derogations runs out and we are left even more helpless than we have been in the past. He said that this is the time to start a renegotiation and open up all these matters. Let it be understood perfectly clearly that we have been virtually powerless hitherto, but when we have absorbed this we shall be totally powerless to renegotiate within the limits of EEC law.

Renegotiation of this or anything else will be possible only when the United Kingdom Government and Ministers are prepared and enabled to say that there is an alternative—when they can say "Gentlemen, you can take it or leave it. These are our conditions, and you know the alternative. The alternative is not that we shall swallow our pride and try to fit our own law to yours. It is what you know perfectly well." When we have that leverage, we can talk about renegotiation. Until then, we have to put up with what is going on in the House tonight.

11.43 p.m.

Mr. David Stoddart (Swindon)

The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) used the stock phrase that we are discussing regulations and that this is not the time for us to consider our membership of the EEC. That is what is said every time we discuss some new absurdity foisted on us by the Common Market.

Bearing in mind what the hon. Gentleman told us about the difficulties of the road haulage industry, when will the time come when we may consider whether our membership of the Community is good or bad for this country? It is about time that we got down to that.

Mr. Fry

In a one and a half hour debate on an important issue affecting many industries apart from the haulage industry, we should confine our remarks to that issue. The hon. Gentleman has raised a much wider aspect which I should be happy to debate with him in future. This is not the occasion for that debate. A number of hon. Members have important points to put to the Minister on the regulations.

Mr. Stoddart

The hon. Gentleman has made my point for me. We have a mass of regulations which we are supposed to absorb, discuss and decide in one and a half hours. That is a result of our membership of the EEC. By order, we translate into British law pieces of legislation made by a body outside this country.

Mr. Hugh Dykes (Harrow, East)

rose—

Mr. Stoddart

No. There is not time for me to give way. I want to get through what I have to say so that the hon. Gentleman and others may have the chance to speak.

In paragraph (A) of the supplementary notes on the regulations the problem is stated in the last sentence, which reads: This coming into operation of the EEC regulation on a broad front creates problems of very great complexity as respects the relationship between the EEC Code and the domestic Code. At present it is difficult to know exactly what is the relationship between the two Codes particularly where they overlap. I feel sure that by the time the debate is over I shall be just as confused as I was at the beginning. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis) has said, undoubtedly these regulations are so massive and so complicated that the ordinary person who has to deal with them with drivers will not know what is happening.

I have had a letter from my borough council. I shall not summarise it but read it as that will be quicker. It indicates the complications that will be caused to haulage firms and passenger transport undertakings, including those in Swindon. The director, technical services, Mr. Pritchard, writes: EEC Drivers' Hours Regulation: 543/69. I have been advised by the Association of District Councils that the phasing-in period relating to the keeping of record books for 'in scope' passenger journeys expired at the end of June. Drivers on 'in scope ' journeys will thenceforward be expected to adhere to the regulation's requirements with regard to the keeping of records. The 'in scope' journeys are those which exceed 50 kilometres. In the case of undertakings like Thamesdown and other municipal transport operators, none of the regular scheduled services are, of course, anywhere near 50 kilometres, but we, and presumably other undertakings, carry out contract work on private hire arrangements to supplement the undertaking's income, and such journeys can be well over 50 kilometres, ie Swindon to London; Swindon to the coast, etc.; but nevertheless, all drivers have an opportunity to do this work, and it becomes part of the men's duties. It is unlikly that any one driver will he called upon to carry out such work more than once or twice a year, but the consequences arc that every man will have to keep a log book for all his work just for the sake of these one or two journeys per year. This adds, of course, to the bureaucratic paper load, not only on the management, but is also likely to be time-consuming and an unnecessary irritation to the bus drivers themselves—that is assuming that they are prepared to keep the log books in a reasonable manner, if at all. This does seem to be carrying the letter of the law a little too far, and in my view would be an unreasonable implementation of the EEC regulation, which I would have thought is quite clearly intended, and probably quite properly to cover drivers who are more or less continuously employed on more medium and long distance passenger transport. I do not know whether you think it is worth taking up this matter with the Department of Transport, or even Mr. Rodgers himself. I have taken up the matter by writing to my right hon. Friend. I felt that I should bring the issue to the attention of the House so that it is aware of the problems and the worries that will be caused to people in my constituency and in every other constituency throughout the country. I hope that when my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State replies he will be able to deal with the aspect that I have raised and specificially with heavier loads and higher speed limits—matters raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. John Cockcroft (Nantwich)

The complexity of these Brussels regulations is indeed remarkable. Members of Parliament need briefs to understand them and the Minister concerned usually feels it necessary to put forward elaborate explanations to all concerned about what is going on and what their legal duties under the regulations are.

Week after week we have ill-attended debates late at night which are often regarded by the public as boring—witness the number of people in the Public Gallery tonight—and unimportant, which they are not.

The question of drivers' hours is a classic case of what I am talking about. It has been rumbling on for many months. People probably know more about this subject than other regulations, because it affects their daily lives. Yet, as so often in the past in similar debates, we are told that as many exceptions, derogations and delays as possible from what is proposed by the Community add up to virtues in themselves.

I would argue that, if we are to go round the inadequacy of the present situation, Parliament must in some way be involved at an earlier stage. There must be consultations and discussions long before we get to this situation.

In effect, the machinery evolved at Messina and in the Treaty of Rome is creaking dangerously. The machinery of the Council of Ministers, of the bureaucratic Commission, of a weak Parliament at Strasbourg, of national executives, parliaments and regional assemblies—the whole edifice—is in urgent need of repair. Consultation—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine)

Order. The hon. Gentleman must realise that we are dealing with a specific portion of all the superstructure about which he is talking.

Mr. Cockcroft

I do, Mr. Deputy Speaker. These traffic regulations bring out these problems in a particularly acute form. Therefore, in future debates we should consider the wider issues raised by them.

11.47 p.m.

Mr. John Evans (Newton)

At the outset I should like to place two points on record. The first is a protest that I always make when we discuss EEC matters: the lateness of the hour and the lack of interest by the national press in these fundamental matters which are of such importance to the British people.

The second is the hypocrisy which emanates from the Opposition Front Bench. We get the old argument that to join the Common Market was wonderful, but that, no matter what comes out, it is to be criticised and the Government are to be attacked for the lack of progress, initiative or drive that they have shown in dealing with the regulations. The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) was no exception tonight. My right hon. Friend made perfectly clear—

Mr. Fry

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Evans

My right hon. Friend made perfectly clear in opening the debate that the EEC regulations were agreed in 1969. When the United Kingdom joined the EEC, no attempts were made to renegotiate or to deal with any aspects of transport policy. Indeed, it is fair to add that when we went through the charade of the so-called renegotiation, no further attempt was made at that stage to deal with transport policy.

Whenever I, as chairman of the Transport Committee of the European Assembly, have attempted to argue the position from the British standpoint, I have been told by my European colleagues that neither the Conservative nor Labour British Government made any objections to the transport proposals.

The House should recognise that this proposal—I am conscious of the time—is part of a much wider proposal to introduce a common transport policy throughout the EEC. There will be many subsequent debates in the House after the next election when the same group of Members will make the same arguments about the follies and idiocies coming from Brussels. But it will be part of a common transport policy of which all who agree with the Common Market will be in favour—until it affects their industry, constituency or any other interest that they represent. The hon. Member for Wellingborough named a number of organisations, including the Road Haulage Association and the NFU. But in 1975 those organisations fought hard to ensure that Britain remained in Europe.

As one who has battled to attempt to make something of the case for the United Kingdom within the Community, I find it hypocritical of those organisations to come to me now and ask me what I am going to do about the situation. I am trying desperately to do something about it, but without much success.

The House should remember that the derogation from the regulation exhausted itself on 31st December 1977. It should have come into operation on 1st January 1978. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State because, although he is a well-known pro-Marketeer, he fought hard within the European institutions, as did others, to obtain a further three-year derogation for the United Kingdom.

In view of the remarks by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), we should try to acquaint ourselves with the difficulties involved in the argument for a national scheme as opposed to an international scheme. This was a tack which some of us tried to take. But the difficulty is that the United Kingdom and Ireland are islands whereas the other seven countries are not. They were not prepared, in any circumstances, to countenance a national scheme because of the difficulties that they have with cross-border traffic and competition.

It is interesting to note the source of pressure for the scheme. It has come from the European trade unions, which are weaker than ours and need legislation to protect them. It has also come from West Germany. That is a transit country. Much traffic from and to other European countries travels through West Germany.

West Germany is anxious to prevent traffic crossing its borders or to force the freight on to rail. We can all understand that argument. But it is essential to recognise the source of the pressure and why it occurs. If we are to formulate a coherent strategy within the EEC we must understand how and why the pressures arise.

Shall we have a special training programme for the extra drivers that will he needed because of this scheme? If we stick to the 450-km limit many journeys in this country will require a second driver. There is no unemployment among heavy goods vehicle drivers. How much will it cost to implement the regulation?

Will reducing the number of hours that a driver can work mean that he will lose wages? How will this conform to the incomes strategy that was put to the House last week? Drivers will not accept loss of earnings. Will the regulation fall foul of the incomes policy?

The Secretary of State must also say something about the tachograph. The tachograph regulation is before the European Court and a ruling will be given soon. It is obvious that the United Kingdom Government have not a snowball's chance in hell of winning that case. What will happen in those circumstances?

Reference has been made to the derogation given to minicoaches. Obviously this relates to the installation of the tachograph, and I should be grateful if the Minister would clarify whether the derogation on the installation of the tachograph in minicoaches will apply to coaches which want to go on the Continent. I am sure my hon. Friend appreciates that the whole argument for the non-installation of the tachograph came from charitable organisations, schools and voluntary organisations which use mini-coaches for their journeys. I understand that whilst there may be a derogation here, they still cannot travel on the Continent.

The hon. Member for Wellingborough referred to enforcement. Can my hon. Friend give us some indication of the level of enforcement of these rules relating to drivers' hours within the other member countries? My information is that the other countries are less keen than is the United Kingdom to enforce this aspect of the law, and I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would give us some indication of the position.

We are told, and I accept, that these proposals are in the interests of road safety and that by reducing the number of hours for which drivers can drive their vehicles we are making sure that too much stress is not placed upon drivers. The one hole in this argument—and I have raised this in the House before, with Commission officials and in the European Assembly—is that there is nothing in these regulations to prevent a driver from taking a second job. In other words, a lorry driver could obey all these regulations, drive for a number of hours, step out of his cab, change his suit and take a job as a barman, a theatre attendant or, conceivably, as a taxi driver and not fall foul of these regulations. Will my hon. Friend dwell for a moment on the fact that there is nothing to prevent a driver who is governed by these rigorous regulations from taking a second job?

11.57 p.m.

Mr Hugh Dykes (Harrow, East)

I had 19 things to say, and I now have to select three of them very quickly.

It is a great shame that Labour Members insist on reaching what I call fundamentalist conclusions as a result of the inevitable complexities of some parts of EEC legislation, particularly on this subject. As someone rightly said in the press over the weekend, we do not say that the House of Commons should be demolished or removed or dismantled just because we disagree with some aspects of its legislation, and it is equally illogical to say that about the EEC.

I think that this is an unusually complicated afrea of EEC legislation, and I congratulate the Secretary of State and the Government on what they have done. It was a very difficult task. Of course they could have done more, and of course I could criticise substantially, but I think that there would have been very little difference in the final results whichever Minister had been pursuing these difficult negotiations.

One of the things that is designed to be tackled in all this problem is the number of hours which lorry drivers have to work. They still have to work too long hours, for all sorts of reasons—I am not making any particular criticism—and I think that the EEC rules, once all the painful harmonisation is achieved in the early 1980s, will be a very good thing.

Can the Minister say the intensity with which he will press the point about exemption for milk vehicles? I think that the situation should be clarified, and perhaps there will be problems on that aspect towards the end of the negotiations.

11.59 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John Horam)

I think that, for reasons of time, if nothing else, I shall try to avoid the more general arguments about the EEC which have been running through this debate. I agreed with what the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said about domestic harmonisation.

Perhaps I may deal chronologically with the speeches made in the debate. On the whole, the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) was very fair in his remarks. We are not anxious ever to accept less than perfection. The hon. Member asked whether we would consolidate the regulations in some respects. Again, for the reasons given by the right hon. Member for Down, South, it is not possible to consolidate regulations in this way. Certainly we can do nothing unilaterally.

The hon. Member also made some remarks about officials in the Department. I must tell him that one or two senior officials have actually deferred their retirement to secure continuity through this rather difficult, uncertain period.

The hon. Member asked me whether we would issue the booklet shortly and whether I could say anything about that. We hope to issue the layman's guide, as my right hon. Friend termed it, more or less simultaneously with the coming into effect of these regulations. That will be about 15 days' time after the appropriate parliamentary procedures have been completed.

The hon. Member asked whether we had talked to the Transport and General Workers' Union about section 96. Section 96 relates to duty time or limits and spread-over. I think that the hon. Member was referring to that. We talked to that union and it was most anxious that we retain these provisions, because the fact is that one cannot control drivers' hours simply by talking about the time they drive. One has also to consider the other aspects of their work, take those into account, and consider the full working day. That is how domestic legislation has always operated. It is right that we should continue this if we do not wish to go back on progress already made in the social sphere. So we did that for those good reasons. In doing that, we are perfectly in line with the stated intention of the EEC, and not only with our own good sense and the good sense of the Transport and General Workers' Union in this respect.

The hon. Member also asked me, in what I think was the nub of his argument, for our views about the fixed week and the rolling week. I think that the hon. Member exaggerated the case there. Certainly we have argued for the fixed week throughout the negotiations. It would be better to have the fixed week than the rolling week. Given that this problem reaches its height only on some excursion tours—the hon. Member instanced the kind about which we are thinking—I think that the problems are more limited than he implied. But I can reassure the hon. Member that we shall continue to negotiate on this point.

As the hon. Member knows, the regulations with regard to the rolling week do not yet come into effect. They come into effect for goods vehicles at the beginning of next year and for buses in October of next year. Certainly by the second stage—almost certainly not by the first stage—we hope that we shall have something in progress on this point. That will possibly not be so. It remains to be seen. None the less, we shall continue to negotiate hard on this matter because we recognise its importance for the flexible working of the industry.

The hon. Member asked why the number of seats on minibuses was 15 and not 17, when we have pretty well standardised on 17 seats throughout our domestic legislation, in the Transport Bill, the Minibus Act and other Acts. This was simply a matter of negotiation. We wished to achieve 17 seats, but our EEC colleagues did not wish to go as high as we in fact achieved, and the figure was a compromise in the end.

I do not believe that this will lead to the sort of competition with existing services which the hon. Member feared. The fact is that commercial minibuses are still subject to our own drivers' hours regulations, and the difference between them and the new drivers' hours restrictions will not be as decisive as the general economic and social arguments for or against using minibuses in certain situations. I do not believe that these particular changes in the law will have the large effect on bus operations which the hon. Member implied.

The hon. Member asked whether we are continuing to negotiate on various sensitive areas, such as the carriage of milk and of fruit vegetables, and flowers, and areas of that kind, where there are serious problems. I assure the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) that we intend to press very hard indeed on the matter of the extension of the derogation for milk, the importance of which we recognise. We are sorry that we had to compromise for the existing derogation that we have, ending in 1980, but we shall take up that point again as hard as we can.

I ask the hon. Member for Wellingborough to distinguish between those things about which we can negotiate within the Community regulations, such as the extension of the derogation for milk, and the other anomalies. He mentioned a factory site split by a highway. We cannot take account of this without a change in the regulations. They are regulations which, as has been said, the Opposition accepted in the Treaty of Accession in 1972. There is that problem in dealing with any further changes.

My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis) also spoke in the debate, and my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) intervened, on the question of heavy lorries. We have no proposals in that respect. Any speculation or rumour in newspapers to a different effect is erroneous.

I have dealt with the broad points of the right hon. Member for Down, South, with which I have sympathy. As he said, we had no powers to renegotiate these things, but we did the best we could in the circumstances.

I shall write to my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Stoddart) about the points he raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Evans) mentioned pay policy. We are sympathetic to the view that lorry drivers should not lose because of these changes. My right hon. Friend is consulting his colleagues to see how these problems can be resolved.

My hon. Friend also mentioned minibuses going to the Continent and the regime which applies there—

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business).

Question agreed to.

Resolved, That the draft Drivers' Hours (Harmonisation with Community Rules) Regulations 1978, which were laid before this House on 17th July, be approved.

Resolved, That the draft Community Road Transport Rules (Exemptions) Regulations, which were laid before this House on 3rd July, be approved.—[Mr. William Rodgers.]