HL Deb 15 March 1933 vol 86 cc1183-90

Heavy fines for overworking.

Fines amounting to over £ 90 were imposed on Commercial Roadways, Ltd., of Southlands Road, Bromley, Kent, Leslie Alexander Knight, Director, and Frank Golding, Manager of the Company, at the Tower Bridge Police Court yesterday, for overworking a lorry driver in their employ.'"

It goes on to say that Mr. Melville prosecuted, and Mr. Vine defended. At a previous hearing Mr. Melville stated that on some occasions Crouch worked as long as thirty-nine hours at a stretch. The Act stipulated that no driver of this type of vehicle should drive for more than 5½ hours at a time, or for more than an aggregate of eleven hours in twenty-four. Mr. Vine submitted that if the section was strictly enforced it would drive many small contractors out of business. Even if an employer allowed his men money to put up at an inn, in most cases they pocketed the money and slept in the cabin of the lorry for a couple of hours by the roadside.… Mr. Metcalfe, the magistrate, said it was a very serious case from the public point of view. One could imagine these drivers of big, six-wheeled lorries driving along the public roads, stupefied for the want of sleep, through these regulations being broken, and nothing could be too strong in condemning it, as in that state they were a menace to the public. All the defendants would he fined on each of the three summonses against them, for allowing a lorry driver to drive for more than an aggregate of eleven hours.

Now, my Lords, here is another case of a lorry driver who only went to bed once a week. It says: Astounding revelations of a lorry driver's long hours at the wheel were made at the Canterbury Police Court on July 16, when D. H. George, trading as the Kent Farmers' Transport Company, was summoned under Section 19 of the Road Traffic Act with unlawfully causing H. R. N. Birch to drive a motor vehicle for continuous periods.… Mr. Birch stated in evidence that he was employed by defendant to drive a six-wheeled Ford to farms round Canterbury, and then on to the London markets. On February 15 he started work at 4 p.m., picked up his load, left Canterbury at 11 p.m. and drove to Covent Garden Market, where he unloaded. He left London at 8 a.m. the following morning, proceeded to Tollgate Garage, Gravesend, where he arrived about 10.30. He left about 11.30 and arrived at defendant's place of business at 2.45 p.m., February 16. He started work at 4 p.m. the same day, picked up his load, and then went home and lay on the sofa till 10 p.m. He left for London at 11 p.m., and arrived at 2.30 the following morning. The only night in the week when lie went to bed was Saturday.

There is another case here of a film company, which was fined £ 25 for aiding and abetting, at Doncaster: Thomas Dodds, motor driver, of Gateshead, was bound over and ordered to pay 4s. costs, on a charge of exceeding the speed limit with a motor wagon, and the Film Transport Company, of Broxburn, by whom he was employed, were fined £ 25 and £ 5 costs for aiding and abetting. The Chairman said that the Court and the public in general were under some obligation to Dodds for giving the information he had. In that court they were constantly fining drivers heavily for exceeding the speed limit. Whether it was the case with other companies he did not know, but at last they had the truth about this cinema company. He went on to say that in the garage they put up a notice in which they referred to a maximum of thirty-five miles for some cars and thirty for others, knowing full well that it was far in excess of the legal limit.

The last case to which I wish to refer is that of a driver who worked fifty-four hours out of ninety-eight, and severe criticism was made by the Coroner of his long hours of labour. His employers were Messrs. Dawson, of Southwark. The man, Frederick Charles Barringer, aged 23, drove down a sixty-seven-foot bank and was crushed against a tree. He had actually been at work for fifty-four out of ninety-eight hours. The dead man's mate said that on the journey he had to keep correcting the steering because Barringer appeared to be dozing. The Coroner said: My deepest sympathy goes to the poor man, who had to work such a lengthy duty, especially when there are so many men unemployed to-day who would be glad to do a very small portion of that work. In my opinion these hours had a great deal to do with the poor fellow's death. The verdict was "Death by misadventure." These cases should convince your Lordships of the terrible dangers and risks now being run every day of the week.

I should like to turn to another aspect of the case, which is from the point of view of safety equally important in my opinion, and that is the over-loading of lorries. A section of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, provides for the amount which lorries may be allowed to carry, and gives power to the local authorities to erect weigh-bridges at suitable places, so that the police, if not satisfied that a lorry is properly loaded, may bring it and weigh it. Very few local authorities have availed themselves of this power. I believe that Warrington has, and a few others have. The trouble is that the police will riot act at present because if they make a man go more than a mile to the weigh-bridge, and it is found that his lorry is not over-loaded, then the police have to pay the cost of the man's time, and they do not like to take that risk. For myself I would prefer that they should have to pay the cost of a hundred lorries, provided they got the hundred and first which was offending, rather than chat one civilian should be maimed or injured.

Can your Lordships imagine a lorry, with brakes in not too good a condition for driving with anything but a normal load, meeting a child who rushes across the road? The unfortunate driver applies his brakes, but they do not act, and the child is either killed or maimed for life. It is not the driver's fault, but that of his employer, who has forced him to drive with such a load and with brakes that do not act. Are we going to imperil the lives of citizens because the police are too nervous to enforce the law, in case they should have costs given against them. On these two main grounds I appeal to your Lordships. I am sure that your Lordships will bring the great weight and force of this House to bear upon the Government, in order that they may bring in legislation to deal with the matter, or to enforce the existing law. I beg to move.

Moved to resolve, That in the opinion of this House further legislation should be introduced to regulate the hours and conditions of employment of drivers of heavy lorries and steam wagons —(The Earl of Kinnoull.)

THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH)

My Lords, I do not think any one would complain of the noble Earl for having raised this subject, and I do not think any one who has examined the position in regard to it can fail to come to the conclusion that the position is not satisfactory. As the noble Earl pointed out at the beginning of his speech, Section 19 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, deals with the limitation, in the interests of public safety, of the time during which drivers of certain vehicles may remain continuously upon the road. Briefly speaking, the provision is to this effect, that no man may drive for a continuous period of more than 5½ hours, or for an aggregate of more than 11 hours in a day or so that he has not at least ten consecutive hours for rest in the twenty-four hours.

It was realised when this particular matter was under discussion between the representatives of the employers and of the trade unions, before the Road Traffic Act of 1930 was actually passed into law, that the provisions of this section would have to be formulated in such a way as to be adaptable to the circumstances of particular branches of industry. For this reason power was conferred upon the Minister under the Act to vary these provisions in certain given circumstances and under certain conditions. It was necessary for the representatives of both the employers and the employees to come to him and make representations on that particular point. But, at any rate, as the result of that subsection a variation has actually been made in the provisions of Section 19 of the Road Traffic Act in respect of certain types of vehicles and affecting certain particular circumstances. It is not necessary for me to go into the details of that variation. I would also like to remind the House that contravention of the provisions of Section 19, and of course of any variation of Section 19, that is to say, made by the order of the Minister, is an offence under the Act and subject to certain penalties, for the first offence not exceeding £ 20, and for a second or subsequent offence not exceeding £ 50, or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months. I think it has been the experience that when it has been possible to obtain a conviction under this section the penalties that have been imposed have been severe penalties. These offences have been looked upon by the magistrates as very serious offences and treated as such. But, as the noble Earl has pointed out, the difficulty lies, not in that quarter but in the extreme difficulty of enforcing the law and obtaining convictions under this section of the Road Traffic Act. I think it is only right to say that when this proposal was originally made for inclu- sion in that Act the Home Secretary pointed out how difficult it would be actually to enforce it. I am afraid that is in the essence of the situation.

Let us just examine what would occur on an occasion of this kind. It is extremely difficult for the police to take action or to obtain a conviction unless there is a certain set of circumstances. In the first place the evidence has to be available, and then it is possible for the police to take action very often where an accident is obviously due to some infringement of this particular section; but it is so rarely that the evidence is there and is available. One knows perfectly well from experience that no employee is going to agree to give evidence against his employer unless he has already been dismissed by his employer as the result of any particular accident. Therefore, I am afraid it is in the essence of the situation that it is extremely difficult not only to obtain a conviction but really to take action at all under this particular section. And I think it is owing to the fact that the Government from the beginning realised that probable difficulty, that they urged upon the trade union concerned that they should undertake what responsibility they could themselves for the enforcement of the law.

The Minister of Transport himself is not in a position to judge of the extent to which the provisions of this section have been disregarded. I think, from what the noble Earl has told us this evening, and from our general knowledge, we know that it has not been enforced to an extent that could by any stretch of imagination be called satisfactory. I therefore am entirely prepared to agree with the noble Earl that there is obviously substance in the contention that Section 19 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, is difficult of enforcement, and that it is largely disregarded by the less scrupulous type of employer. The noble Earl said that it was disregarded by everybody. I do not think that is strictly true. In fairness to the reputable type of employers it is only right to say that they are particularly anxious that these provisions should be universally enforced if possible, because otherwise they do not know whom they are up against or the kind of people they have to compete with. But I entirely agree that it is largely disregarded by the less scrupulous type of employer, and this applies more particularly to the transport of goods by road. It does not apply so much to public service vehicles, because they are already dealt with, or they can be dealt with I think effectively, under another section of the Road Traffic Act.

In reply to a Question in another place on February 8, the Minister said that the question of the more effective enforcement of this and other legal requirements will need to be considered in connection with the Government's proposed Bill for the better regulation and control of good transport by road. The Government, as has been stated on several occasions already in this House, have most carefully considered the recommendations of the Salter Report with regard to the licensing and regulation of goods traffic by road and also the relevant recommendations of the final Report of the Royal Commission on Transport, and they have already publicly announced their intention to introduce before Easter a Bill to provide for the licensing and the better regulation of the transport of goods by road. This Bill is now in active preparation, and it will be presented to Parliament very shortly.

I further agree with the noble Earl that the less scrupulous type of operator in this business of the transport of goods by road is apt not only to disregard this particular section of the Road Traffic Act, which deals with hours of employment, but in many cases he also grossly overloads his vehicles— overloads them far beyond the legal limits— and, by the conditions as to time-schedules, compels his men to drive at speeds greatly exceeding the limits imposed by the Act. I want freely to admit that the Government recognise that these abuses exist among the less reputable operators, and one of the matters under consideration in connection with the Bill which will shortly be introduced is the provision of means for a more effective enforcement of the law in these respects. I hope that what I have said will satisfy the noble Earl, and, as far as the Government are concerned, they are prepared to accept his Resolution.

THE EARL OF KINNOULL

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl very much for his sympathy with the object I have in view. I was delighted to hear him say that a Bill was coming before Parliament before Easter, and also it will deal specially with overloading.

THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH

I do not think I actually said that.

THE EARL OF KINNNOULL

I beg the noble Earl's pardon

THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH

I said that these were all matters that were under consideration in connection with this Bill.

THE EARL OF KINNOULL

I am afraid the noble Earl did not go quite as far as I would like. But in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

House adjourned at twenty minutes past six o'clock.