HL Deb 29 July 1986 vol 479 cc788-801

7.30 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness)

My Lords, I beg to move that the three draft regulations and the draft order standing in my name on the Order Paper be approved.

These regulations and the order form part of a comprehensive revision of the rules governing the driving time and rest periods of goods and passenger vehicle drivers, and the use of tachographs. They relate in the main to goods drivers. Most goods vehicles of 3.5 tonnes and most coaches are subject to the EC regulations on drivers' hours and tachographs. They are also subject to the provisions of the Transport Act 1968 on duty periods; that is, the total time a driver may work.

Drivers not subject to the EC rules have their driving, rest and duty periods controlled by the Transport Act 1968. New EC Regulations 3820/85 and 3821/85 were agreed by the Council of Ministers on 14th November 1985 and will come into effect on 29th September 1986. They apply directly in the United Kingdom and are not the subject of today's Motion, apart from provisions for permissible derogations. However, they underlie our debate and are the reason for the four instruments before us. The House will recall that proposed changes to the existing regulations were the subject of the Select Committee on the European Committee's 19th report in the 1983–84 Session, and were debated on 15th November 1984.

The new EC regulations result from many months of negotiation on the original Commision proposals and reflect the views of all the member states. They are not perfect but we believe that they are an important step in the right direction. They will bring significant benefits to drivers in the form of less driving, longer weekly rest and longer breaks for most of them. Drivers and operators together will benefit from the ability marginally to increase daily driving and to postpone daily and weekly rest subject to later compensation.

The four instruments before us will allow our industry to take full advantage of the new EC regime. I apologise to your Lordships for having to go into some detail, but your Lordships will understand the necessity and importance of so doing. May 1 start with a comment on the Community Drivers' Hours and Recording Equipment Regulations 1986. This draft instrument makes consequential changes to existing legislation to take account of the new EC Regulations 3820/85 and 3821/85, which I have already mentioned.

I turn to the Drivers' Hours (Goods Vehicles) (Modifications) Order 1986. This draft instrument modifies the domestic drivers' hours code for goods vehicle which are outside the scope of the EC regulations. The existing code is disapplied except for the daily driving limit and the daily duty limit. The vast majority of drivers under this code are light goods vehicle drivers who do not go long distances or drive long hours. We have simplified the rules for them but retained two effective controls.

The second regulation is the Drivers' Hours (Harmonisation with Community Rules) Regulations. This draft instrument gives requirements for those who drive under both EC and domestic rules. Those under the EC rules will no longer be required to observe duty requirements. The definition of the working week has been amended to concur with the EC definition.

There has been genuine concern from the trade unions and others that the removal of duty limits will lengthen the working day, lead to exploitation and increase driver fatigue. We do not belittle that concern, but we consider that the new EC rules in themselves provide adequate safeguards. Weekly rest goes up from 40 to 45 hours and breaks for most drivers go up to three-quarters of an hour from half an hour. The ability to drive an extra hour and postpone some rest—but it must be compensated for—is directly in line with one of the Select Committee's conclusions that journeys should be arranged so that drivers can return home to spend their leisure hours and sleep. If we retained duty limits, this ability would vanish. It is true that this flexibility could in theory lead to a driver being on duty for up to 15 hours in a day, including 10 hours driving. But such a long day must be compensated by corresponding shorter days and could not be worked on a regular basis. To ensure that the new provisions are not abused, we will continue to strengthen our existing enforcement effort.

Last but not least, I turn to the Community Drivers' Hours and Recording Equipment (Exemptions and Supplementary Provisions) Regulations. This draft instrument provides for permissible derogations from the EC regulations. It also provides for a shorter break for some coaches in London, some coach tours to postpone weekly rest for six days, and requires some postal services carrying parcels to fit tachographs.

We intend to take full advantage of the permissible derogations. The local business or industry that is not competing with the professional haulier should not be saddled with the cost of fitting and maintaining a tachograph. Among those who will benefit are: The farming, forestry, horticultural and fishing industries; the local small businessman not engaged in haulage; those who do not leave any of our offshore islands, including the Isle of Wight; electric and gas powered vehicles under 7.5 tonnes; drivers of minibuses with up to 17 seats. The proposed exemptions for the Royal Naval Lifeboat Institution, vintage vehicles and sea coal vehicles require approval from the European Commission and the regulation will not be made until it is granted.

Your Lordships may like to know that, although we were unsuccessful in Brussels in getting all private driving of passenger vehicles exempted from the new EC rules, we have asked the Commission to re-examine this question.

These four instruments further our policy of reducing unnecessary burdens on industry while having proper regard to road safety. They will allow the industry to increase its efficiency and drivers to improve their working conditions. I commend these instruments to the House, and I beg to move.

Moved, That the Drivers' Hours (Goods Vehicles) (Modifications) Order 1986 laid before the House on 1lth June [27th Report from the Joint Committee]; the Drivers' Hours (Harmonisation with Community Rules) Regulations 1986 laid before the House on 1lth June [27th Report from the Joint Commit we]; the Community Drivers' Hours and Recording Equipment Regulations 1986 laid before the House on 27th June [28th Report from the Joint Committee]; and the Community Drivers' Hours and Recording Equipment (Exemptions and Supplementary Provisions) Regulations 1986 laid before the House on 1lth June [27th Report from the Joint Committee] be approved.—(The Earl of Caithness.)

Lord Underhill

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his explanation of these regulations and the order. Although I have the greatest respect for the noble Earl, I wonder whether he has really covered all the points that arise. I say that, first, because, having attempted to read the four measures and then the four memoranda, I feel that it must be agreed that the four memoranda tell us very little about these complex documents. It might have been useful if somewhere there had been set out all the existing provisions regarding drivers' hours, rest periods, duty hours, breaks and so on; what the changes are, and what is left.

I have found it extremely helpful to read the debate on this order and the regulations in the other place on 15th July. It has also been extremely helpful to read carefully a very long letter sent by the Transport and General Workers' Union to the Under-Secretary of State on 3rd June and also to take into consideration the report of your Lordships' own Select Committee on social conditions for drivers, to which the noble Earl has referred, and the debate on that report which took place on 15th November 1984.

It will be recalled that the Select Committee were concerned not only about road safety but also about the social conditions for drivers. I understand the complications which your Lordships' Select Committee appreciated; namely, the difficulties of working two sets of rules—the United Kingdom regulations and those of the EC. However, it may be recalled that the Transport and General Workers' Union made absolutely clear to the Select Committee that it did not want to see a universal standard that was less effective than that which we have already. It wished to have a minimum EC standard supple-mented by the more advanced United Kingdom standards. I think that that was the general type of view which seemed to permeate through your Lordships' Select Committee. Will we have that if these regulations are approved?

In May this year, the Transport and General Workers' Union commented: Contrary to what the Government has said previously, the new regulations change fundamentally the hours of work and rest periods by providing for an extension of both driving hours and the working day and allowing shorter periods of rest". Those words were actually used by the Opposition spokesman in the other place, and examples were set out of what may happen in certain cases, but I regret to say that they were not dealt with in the reply of the Under-Secretary of State in the other place.

I think it will be generally agreed that the 1968 Act rules have served the United Kingdom extremely well and that, generally, our road safety standards, particularly for goods vehicles, are very high indeed. But I see that the Under-Secretary of State said, at col. 954 of the Official Report of that debate on the regulations: To retain our existing weekly duty limit of 60 hours would prevent the use of a new EC provision which allows weekly rest to be reduced in one week provided it is compensated within the following three weeks. So we are proposing to abolish all 1968 Act limits on duty hours in so far as they apply to driving subject to EC rules."—[Official Report, Commons. 15/7/86.] The first order, which is entitled Drivers' Hours (Goods Vehicles) (Modifications) Order, refers to the fact that certain aspects of the 1968 Act rules are no longer to apply. It refers, in particular, to subsection (3)(a), which I find refers to the working day not exceeding 11 hours and which I gather is still to be retained. But it makes no reference at all to paragraph (b) of the same subsection, which deals with the spread-over of duty to 12½ hours maximum. I presume that that is being abolished and that no longer will the maximum duty of 12½ hours in any day still apply.

The noble Earl said that the normal weekly rest will be increased from 40 to 45 hours, but, as I have already mentioned, this must be compensated within a three-week period. The Transport and General Workers' Union argue that this is no betterment at all and, in the letter to the Under-Secretary of State, they said that the statements made are misleading and that, Employers will be able to use a combination of the sixth day working and permutations in the weekly rest period with no benefit to the driver". They set out the arguments in support of that case.

The case was put in the other place that with the introduction of the sixth day working, a driver could work four nine-hour spells and two 10-hour spells, resulting in 56 hours driving and working during one week. That statement was made in the debate in the other place and it was not replied to in any way in the closing speech of the Under-Secretary of State.

As I said, the order makes clear that there is no change in the daily rest period of 11 hours between working days. But the union also claim that under the new regulations it will be 11 hours, but reducing to three times nine hours per week, or 12 hours in two or more periods, one of which must be at least eight hours. I want to hear the argument against this point made by the union—it has not been advanced—which could be greatly exploited by some employers.

We are told that the minimum break period will be increased from half an hour to three-quarters of an hour. I understand—and I am always open to correction, because this is a very complex matter—that at present the half-hour break is after 54 hours duty. Under the new regulations it will be after 44 hours actual driving. When your Lordships' Select Committee considered the general and social conditions of drivers, they suggested that a break should be after four hours driving. It could well be that in the course of a working day many drivers will not accumulate 44 hours actual driving, and this point was made by the union. What, then, are the provisions for their rest break if the new regulations are to change from 54 hours duty to 44 hours actual driving? The union have also argued that the waiting time to load or to unload will not be deemed to be on-duty time.

At this point, I should like to deal with the question of flexibility, to which reference has been made, particularly by the Under-Secretary of State in the other place. In col. 956 of the Official Report he said: The proposals contained in these instruments pay proper regard to road safety and they are consistent with our policy of reducing unnecessary burdens on industry. Trade unions and employers will be able to negotiate together new patterns of work which will allow both drivers and operators to benefit fully from the increased flexibility". There are obviously grave dangers in this.

Despite what the Minister has said about enforcement, are we satisfied that it will be possible within this alleged flexibility to have effective enforcement? What I am saying is in line with the evidence given by those who attended the Select Committee—and I ask your Lordships to remember that I attended most meetings of the Select Committee—from the Department of Transport, that the Government are concerned with road safety but that conditions of work are matters to be settled between employers and employees. I recall that in our debate I protested and asked if that is the case, why do we have United Kingdom standard regulations dealing with conditions, hours and so on? Bearing in mind that the majority of haulage employers have five or fewer vehicles, and many are non-unionised, the problem of carrying out enforcement with any degree of flexibility will be extremely difficult.

The Minister has said that it will be made easier for drivers to vary driving hours to enable them to reach home and relax there, instead of being forced to sleep in the cab. This is an aspect which was considered very carefully by your Lordships' Select Committee. They held the view, which I endorse, that where distance permits journeys to be so arranged as to allow drivers to get to their homes and have proper relaxation, that ought to be done. But they said that there should not be too sharp an increase in hours to enable that to be done.

The problem which the union have posed is that the new regulations will provide for nine hours driving, but twice weekly for a period of 10 hours driving. I must ask: how will this be rigidly enforced and how can abuse of this flexibility be avoided? I think all of us should like to see journeys so arranged that drivers can get home by some extension of hours, rather than have to sleep in their cabs, which is a procedure which your Lordships' Select Committee said should be avoided wherever possible. But we must ensure that, somehow, the flexibility to enable this to be done is not abused.

The debate in the other place concentrated a fair amount of time on the effect of driver fatigue, but I must remind your Lordships of what our own Select Committee said in its report. It said that there is insufficient research into the effect of fatigue on driving safety and that further research is necessary into the causes of driver fatigue. That was some two or two-and-a-half-years ago, and I do not know whether further research is taking place. The Select Committee said that there should be a substantial break after four hours at the wheel. It has been suggested in the regulations that the period should now be four-and-a-half hours. The Select Committee also said that there should be freedom to take other breaks according to the individual needs of drivers, and that the regulations must provide safeguards against driving for long periods when already tired and fatigued by other work. Where is there a reference in these new regulations to that important aspect of driver fatigue and road safety? Your committee also said that irregular shifts can lead to dangerous driver fatigue. I would ask that the new EC regulations should be checked with the utmost care to ensure that they provide stable and humane shift arrangements.

It was not my intention to refer at all to the passenger and coach aspect because the new regulations seem to be all right in that respect. Having read today's reports of the tragic coach accident on the continent, where no other vehicle was involved and where the driver went off the motorway into a ditch, one must ask whether we are satisfied that the position on driver fatigue of coach drivers on long journeys may not have to be looked at. There is nothing in the regulations to deal with that.

The new regulations make no reference at all to a maximum spreadover of duty hours. The 1968 Act provides for a 12½-hour maximum.

Lord Teviot

My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord for interrupting, but I think I can tell the noble Lord about the accident to which he has referred. Accidents have always to be looked into, and I only refer to it because the noble Lord has done so. I gather that the driver concerned had been in his place only for about 35 minutes when the accident occurred.

Lord Underhill

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, but I was not drawing any conclusions whatsoever about it. All I say is that some people have suffered injury, if not fatality; but, generally speaking, our coach journeys are thoroughly safe. All I say is that one ought to look carefully at the report of that accident to see whether or not driver fatigue comes into it. Most of us have driven on motorways, and I confess that it would not be the first time that I have suddenly woken up after being asleep for a second. But that second is enough to send one in the wrong direction. I think most noble Lords will have suffered that experience.

Could the noble Earl tell us what is being rescinded in the 1968 Act, and what is left? The union claim that what remains will be just the 11 hours maximum duty, and the 10 hours maximum daily driving spread over a day. There is no provision in these regulations for meal breaks other than the one fixed rest referred to. I should have liked to have seen all these set out so that we could see clearly what these regulations provide. The Minister said in the other place—and the noble Earl referred to enforcement policy—that there will be consultation with both sides of industry on how to make this effective. Of course I welcome that.

I would remind the House that our own Select Committee expressed concern that there should be enforcement by all countries—they were concerned that Britain carried out a fair enforcement policy, but other countries did not—not only in the interests of road safety but also to control unscrupulous operators. One must admit that even in the United Kingdom there are unscrupulous operators, many of them operating just two or three vehicles. We want to ensure that the new regulations, and what is left of our 1968 provisions, will be adequately enforced.

May I ask the Minister whether the Under-Secretary of State, or another Minister, has replied to the many points in the letter of 3rd June of the Transport and General Workers' Union? Many points were covered. and I have not seen them answered in the debate in the other place. I do not suggest that the noble Earl should reply to them all tonight because they cover about six or seven pages, but I wonder, if a reply has been sent to the union, whether a copy could be placed in the Library. Could there also be placed in the Library a list comparing all the limitations which existed prior to these regulations before us, and the position on all these points after these regulations have been approved? I say "after" because it is not the policy of the Opposition to oppose regulations and instruments approved by the other House, but there are a number of important points that we should like to have answered.

I have in front of me a chart of the sort that was presented to the Select Committee contrasting what was then the EC regulations, the 1968 regulations, what were going to be abolished and what might be retained. We should like to see a list of that kind placed in the Library which would tell us exactly which points of the 1968 Act no longer exist and all the new regulations, and not just the minimum number to which reference has been made.

Lord Tordoff

My Lords, it is common ground that we thank the Minister for presenting these regulations as clearly as anybody could. It is also common ground that all in this House would oppose anything which led to an increase in road accidents. That is something which crosses all parts of the House. It is difficult to disentangle the facts in this debate, and it is not helped by having read the debate in the other place, where the facts seemed to get even more entangled rather than the other way round.

We have some facts. The Transport Road Research Laboratory has made it clear that something like 11 per cent. of motorway accidents to heavy goods and public service vehicles involve driver fatigue. But there is not any evidence that there is a direct link between driving time and fatigue—and I emphasise "between driving time and fatigue". However, a recent report of the Medical Commission for Accident Prevention entitled Medical Aspects of Fitness to Drive says: Scientific evidence supports the view that limits are needed to duty hours if fatigue effects incurred from non-driving tasks and from disruption of sleep quality and quantity are to be minimised.". This touches on the point that the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, made in response to what the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said about yesterday's tragic accident. None of us knows the cause of that accident. It may be that driver fatigue could be a factor: we simply do not know. There may be mechanical reasons, or whatever.

Were it to be driver fatigue it would not necessarily depend on the number of hours the driver had been driving. As the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, has apparently found out, the number of hours in that spell were quite short, but that does not mean that there could not be other fatiguing factors because of other duties. Duty hours are much more important than driving hours. As I read the new regulations they tend to regulate the hours of driving rather than the hours of work. Under the 1968 Act, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has said, an 11 -hour working day was the maximum, whereas under the new regulations a driver can have 13 hours work within a 24-hour period, as I calculate the regulations as they stand.

The question of short breaks is something which slightly baffles me as well. The EC rules, as I understand them, provide for breaks after a period of continuous driving; normally 45 minutes after 4½ hours. The law is clear enough after 4½ hours' driving. A driver must have a break, and other work does not count as a break. That is perfectly clear. But the EC rules are unclear about the entitlement of a driver who drives for, say, two hours, unloads for one hour, drives for three hours and unloads again for one hour. There have been conflicting judgments in United Kingdom courts already about when, if at all, such a driver is entitled to a break under the EC rules. The Transport Act 1968 provides for a break of half an hour after 5½ hours' continuous work, not just continuous driving. The draft regulation would remove this entitlement. I find that extremely worrying.

The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, mentioned also the worries about spreadover. As I understand it, the drivers' driving hours may now be spread over up to 15 hours; that is, 24 hours less a minimum of nine for rest. In other words, he could clock in at 7 a.m., drive for 44 hours, wait around at his destination for five hours, and then drive back arriving at his base at 10 p.m.

The Transport Act 1968 limits the spreadover of goods drivers to 12½ hours, so it seems that there is a much greater spread here. One accepts that flexibility may be a good thing and that drivers would be far better getting back to their homes and their own beds rather than sleeping in the cab, however comfortable some of those cabs are these days. It is far better that a man should be able to get home, or I should say a woman: one must not be sexist these days, even on heavy goods vehicles.

There is a very serious worry here that the EC regulations are allowing far too much in the spreadover period. The regulations specifically allow member states to lay down higher minima for both breaks and rest periods although a maximum for daily and weekly driving. It seems to me that nothing in the EC regulations would therefore prevent the United Kingdom from retaining the 11 -hour duty limit or the entitlement to a break after five hours' work.

Your Lordships' Select Committee has already been referred to in this debate. When it reported in May 1984 it broadly came out in favour of what at that time was the European Commission's suggestion in wanting a limit on continuous duty, but the lack of agreement in Europe between employers and unions led to an imposed solution which went for the system that we now have; the control of the duty period instead of the driving period. It is my belief, though I am certainly open to correction, that Her Majesty's Government have discretion and that they should use that discretion to the absolute maximum. Obviously the operators are happy with the increased flexibility and one should not sneer at that. We need to have an efficient road haulage system. To be competitive in world markets, we need to make the maximum use of equipment that we possibly can, safely. This must not be at the expense of safety, however.

May I ask the noble Earl what comments the police have had to make on these variations? It seems to me that the increased flexibility must make it very difficult for the ordinary policeman to come to an on the spot interpretation of what the rules are. I know they are not simple at the moment, but it seems to me that the interpretation under the new regulations may be more difficult for the average police constable to enforce.

When it comes to a technical enforcement of the items contained in these regulations, I understand that this is mainly done by the Department of Transport traffic examiners, of whom there are only 235 for the whole of Great Britain. While there may be 29 in Kent and Sussex (that may be a good place to put them to challenge drivers coming through the Channel ports) there are only three in the whole of Mid and South Wales. That seems inadequate, particularly when these people for reasonable reasons are reluctant to work outside normal hours or to work overtime because Government spending limits have cut down the amount of overtime that can be worked. I understand that if a policeman stops a vehicle and there is no examiner available because it is out of hours or because it is in an overtime period, the policeman may have to let that vehicle go even if he considers it to be in an unsafe state.

May I ask the Government what monitoring and research has been done so far and what monitoring they intend to carry out when these regulations come into effect, as they doubtless will? I accept that the maximum fortnightly driving has been reduced from 92 to 90 hours and I accept that the minimum weekly rest has been increased from 40 to 45 hours, although this can, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, pointed out, be reducible with compensation. But it seems to me that the overall position is gravely weakened by removing the limits on the daily duty and the maximum spreadover. We are very unhappy, as my honourable friend Mr. Cartwright expressed in another place, that the safety provisions are being eroded.

If these regulations are not carefully monitored, I believe that the cowboys will profit at the expense of the reasonable haulage companies and at the expense of the health of the drivers and will endanger the ultimate safety of the public. Like the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, we do not intend to oppose these regulations in this Chamber, they having passed through another place. But I ask the Government to take serious consideration of the points that have been raised both here and in another place, to try to set minds at rest and above all to make sure that these regulations are properly monitored. If they are deficient, if there is any suggestion that safety is in decline, we hope the Government will do everything they can to use the maximum flexibility within the regulations to ensure that safety standards are improved and not reduced.

Lord Stanley of Alderley

My Lords, I have recently criticised my noble friend for being mean over motorway competition. On this occasion I should like to correct the balance by thanking him on behalf of the agricultural, forestry and horticultural industries for the exemptions provided and also, in the absence of my chairman, my noble friend the Duke of Atholl, I should particularly like to thank my noble friend for the representations that he is making to the Commission on behalf of the RNLI. We are most grateful for that exemption. I support the regulations.

Lord Teviot

My Lords, by and large I welcome these regulations although I shall be making one or two points or even criticisms on behalf of passengers. I should like to say before I am a minute older how much the Bus and Coach Council, the Freight Transport Association and the Road Haulage Association appreciate the way the officials in the Department of Transport have helped. I gather that much hard work has gone into making these orders more flexible. They are complicated, the subject is complex, some might even refer to it as being dull, but all these orders affect an awful lot of people's lives. I am sure people are very grateful for what the department has done.

On the goods side, I have very little to say because it was well covered in the other place. The Freight Transport Association has sent a very good brief, but it welcomes the tidying-up operation which these orders cover. These orders ensued from the 1968 Act. The FTA felt that the existing laws were unsatisfactory. The only doubt I have to pass on from the Road Haulage Association (which the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, has already mentioned from what he has heard) is whether the new laws will be properly enforced.

With passengers it is a slightly different situation. This was not covered in the other place at all. My noble friend has already mentioned that the instructions to the Commission in 1984–85 were to simplify the regulations, make them more flexible and improve conditions for drivers. There is considerable doubt whether any of these three have been achieved. The new regulations, about which the passenger side feels rather strongly, are mainly designed for goods transport. The regulations to do with goods transport do not sit easily with passenger transport, which is a different matter. Particular difficulties can arise with the weekly rest, which is increased from 39 to 45 hours, and the awkwardness of compensation for any permitted reduction of it. Its effect will be to reduce a six-day availability to five and a half or even five day working, which could be a serious loss to a seasonal industry. 1 gather again that in this seasonal industry we have a North-South situation as the regulations concern passenger transport and the tours people. People from the North have further to go and there is even more of a problem.

The employer in arranging the driver's hours of work will have much less room to manoeuvre. The maximum duty hours available to employers and drivers will drop by 15½ per cent.—that is, from 76 to 64i hours. In practical terms one of the six days presently available is lost.

This is felt only by the passenger side. The Freight Transport Association and the Road Haulage Association dissociate themselves from these remarks. They do not apply to them. But the opportunities for drivers to earn well in the season will be reduced both for themselves and for their employers. It is likely therefore, that more part-time employment and less full-time employment of drivers would ensue in some types of coach operation. In the present economic climate, many coach firms will be unable to retain as high a proportion of drivers through the winter as hitherto—not only for those reasons but for other reasons which perhaps it would not be proper for me to go into.

I think that one must explain that in this country, in the United Kingdom, there is an almost unique express network which the Government's deregulation of coach services has helped to develop. Personally, I think it is a very good thing. However, the longer break—and the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, touched on this—has now been reduced from five-and-a-half hours to four-and-a-half hours; whereas four hours was recommended by the committee. I am not quite sure but I believe that whereas in the five-and-a-half hours there was a 30-minute break, in the four-and-a-half hours there will be a 45-minute break. I gather that that poses certain operational problems. These concern mainly interchange facilities and congestion at certain of them. A derogation is under discussion at present to ease this problem. However, this regulation is likely to result, in a significant number of cases, in increased overall journey time.

I really have very little more to say, and I have not gone on for very long. The noble Lord. Lord Underhill, mentioned the tragic coach accident in the early hours of this morning. It could have been due to fatigue, but accidents do happen and I think that one can say absolutely that this is a human problem. From what I gather, the driver drove over a pothole on a motorway. Also I can say that the French opposite number of our transport association (which I believe is called the Fédération Nationale de Transport Routiére) say that there was no contravention of regulations and that the police are not taking up the matter at all. It comes back to a point that was raised in the other place by no less a person than the right honourable Mr. Michael Foot, who mentioned a passage in the Official Report of the other place of 25th June 1986 which (although I have not been able to find the reference) said that there was no clearly established connection between driving hours and fatigue. Mr. Foot referred to that as "drivel".

Lord Tordoff

My Lords, I am not sure that it is quite proper for the noble Lord to be quoting from the Official Report of another place, save only when a Minister is speaking.

Lord Teviot

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, but I thought that it was quite all right to quote chapter and verse. However, be that as it may. I must apologise, but I can continue on my own on this subject.

I am glad that it has been established at last and is understood that accidents do not happen only at the end of a shift. Accidents can happen in the very early hours, as we see in this incident; and the noble Lord himself mentioned it. A great deal of research has gone into this but more research may be needed. I have long suspected that the whole thing has to with human error, which can happen at any time. I will conclude by saying that the passenger industry has had a very good year so far. This is the first major accident with any fatalities of any coach, not only in this country but elsewhere. Their record is extremely good. Also extremely good, I believe, is the record of the goods operators.

8.15 p.m.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, chided me for not covering all the points which arose from these three draft regulations and the draft order, but I am sure that if I had tried to cover all the points the noble Lord would have said, "I beg to move that the noble Earl be no longer heard". And the noble Lord would have been quite right so to do. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said that this is going to cause tremendous problems for the drivers. My noble friend Lord Teviot said, "No, my Lords. It is going to pose tremendous problems for the operators". So I think the Government and the other member states have got it about right. It is not perfect for either side, but it is somewhere in the middle and I think we have a better working solution now than we had before.

Lord Tordoff

My Lords, will the noble Earl not agree that the important point is whether it has been got right for the travelling public and for the safety of the public at large?

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, that is always uppermost in our minds. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, quoted from a TGWU letter, I think, and said that these regulations were a fundamental change. They are not a fundamental change. It is solely because the proposals are so much in line with what was the situation in our 1968 Act that we have been able to get rid of the duplication and come under one set of regulations—which must be a preferable situation to operating under two distinct legislations, the EC regulation and that of our own Transport Act.

It is the removal of the hours of duty, the total duty hours, that has provided the very necessary flexibility which we all wanted to see for drivers to allow them to get home after work, where that was feasible, rather than spending the night in their cabs. Although the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said that we must have this back again, the moment we have it back it reduces the flexibility that we have now built into the system. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, supports me on the need for flexibility, because he said so at col. 473 of Hansard on 15th November 1984; but I shall not quote chapter and verse.

Lord Underhill

My Lords, the important point on flexibility was not to allow the drivers to get home and was not the question of the tour of duty, which is 12½ hours. It was the driving hours involved. That is to be considered as well. That is why we are prepared now to allow a certain amount of flexibility so long as there is proper enforcement and no abuse.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, I am coming on to enforcement in a minute. The noble Lord said that there had been no reply to a couple of examples given in another place. During the debate in the other place on 15th July, the honourable Member for Wigan, Mr. Stott, gave two examples of work patterns that he said might occur under the proposals. One of those involved a driver working from 9 a.m. one morning to 2.15 a.m. the following day, a 17¼ hour working day—16½ hours allowing for a break of 45 minutes. That would not be legal. It surprises me that the honourable Member made such a fundamental mistake as that.

The regulations will require a rest of 11 hours to be taken in every 24 hours. That may be reduced to nine hours three times a week provided that later rest periods are extended in compensation. The absolute maximum working day will be 15 hours, of which not more than 10 hours can be spent at the wheel, and three-quarters of an hour will be a break. This can happen three times a week at most, to be followed by an extended rest period. The right honourable member for Barnsley, Central, Mr. Mason, gave an example of a long week which, he said, could total 68½ hours driving over six days. In fact, that is wrong, too, in that not more than 56 hours may be spent driving in any one week, and not more than 90 hours in a fortnight. Also 68½ hours' duty is possible in six days, but it must be followed by over two days' rest—51 hours—so it could not happen every week. I hope tht that has cleared up those two misleading examples.

The noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Tordoff, and my noble friend Lord Teviot mentioned enforcement. The department has 235 traffic examiners who checked half a million tachograph charts in 1985, and on top of this the police checked many more. This admirable effort on the ground is being further enhanced by a new high technology system for checking large numbers of charts automatically. This system is already in operation. So we are making progress on that front, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, will be pleased with that.

The noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Tordoff, also talked about fatigue. Fatigue is common to us all. I wonder how one would classify the duty hours in this House; I remember long hours when we were in Opposition, when the Labour Government were trying to take legislation through at the end of July. It happens to all governments. I think that the new system of a break after 4½ hours' driving is a satisfactory situation. In fact, it is a longer break than we had before. So it is an improvement. But of course during that period of break one has no control over what the driver is doing. He might be taking a sensible rest, he might be having a game of football, or seeing his girlfriend, which will probably be more fatiguing. But that is one of the things over which we have no control. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked about a driver who was not driving 4½ hours a day. There is, of course, no provision for a break in such an instance because he is primarily not a driver, and that would be covered under his normal conditions affecting working hours which are a matter for the usual negotiations between employer and employee.

With regard to the TGWU letter of 3rd June, I can tell the House that Ministers have had several exchanges, letters and meetings with the unions. The Secretary of State met MPs and union officers on 3rd July. I shall see whether a copy of the letter can be placed in the Library. I shall also see whether a proper summary of the proposed changes for goods vehicles can be placed in the Library, if that is helpful to noble Lords.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord, and I have been sitting listening with great interest. Instead of putting up a list of changes, is it possible to state what the actual situation is? Drivers used to be able to know the old regulations fairly well, and it must be very confusing for drivers now. particularly when there are so many exemptions—quite legitimate ones—for farm vehicles, lifeboat vehicles and airport vehicles. Is it possible to have a small booklet which gives an indication, without it being binding in law, of the rules of the road for drivers? I believe that would help me as well.

The Earl of Caithness

My Lords, I shall see what we can do on that. I have a huge list of derogations with me, but I think it would perhaps test the patience of the House if I went through it word for word.

I turn to the question of what is left of the 1968 Act—a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. All that is left are the provisions for drivers not covered by the EC rules. These are 10 hours' driving a day and 11 hours' duty. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley for his thanks in regard to the agricultural vehicles and the RNLI; I think those are two important derogations of which we can be proud.

I think in summary, as I said in the beginning, it is perhaps not the perfect solution to have these four draft instruments before us, but it is a satisfactory step forward without endangering road safety, and I would recommend the House to accept them.

The Earl of Swinton

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.30 p.m.

[The Sitting was suspended from 8.26 to 8.30 p.m.]