AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

No blanket loopholes in Hours regs

6th March 1970, Page 45
6th March 1970
Page 45
Page 45, 6th March 1970 — No blanket loopholes in Hours regs
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

rom our Parliamentary correspondent

There are to be no local exemptions from he regulations governing bus drivers' hours hie to come into operation on March 15. dr Fred Mulley. the Minister of Transport, .esisted the idea when the Commons last week approved the regulations.

"I do not see that there is a need to make .egulations to provide for the Traffic :ommissioners to give further exemptions )n a local basis," he said. "I think that the )perators and unions must face these roblems during the next 18 months if they ire to provide the crews to maintain the tecessary services. It would be :ounter-productive if they could get an :xemption for every temporary difficulty.

"This is not a case of just a few shortages n one or two cities or counties. This public ransport problem is very widespread and it would not be right to give the 7ornmissioners these special powers."

The Order giving effect to the regulations lad been introduced by Mr Bob Brown, Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry, who said that, as a result of extensive :.onsultations with operators and unions, the Vlinistry was satisfied that the exemptions, )ermanent and temporary, were genuinely leeded.

Mr John Hynd (Labour, Attercliffe) said le was seriously perturbed by the Order. As ong ago as June 1967 the then Minister of fransport seemed to meet the unions' tttitude on the control and restriction of lriving hours.

Surely sufficient time had elapsed for )perators to have adjusted their rrangements accordingly, asked Mr Hynd. [f three years had not been sufficient, he :ould not see how another 18 months, till Detober 1971, would prove an adequate Drivers were being forced, he said, by ow wages and bad conditions, to drive :xcessive hours, and the restrictions mposed by the 1968 Act had been introduced because of this state of affairs. As these conditions were no less dangerous now, it was all the more reason to protect drivers and the public, and he found it difficult to understand why the Government was introducing these modifications.

It was wrong to provide in an Order complete blanket loopholes for all operators whether they were capable or incapable of complying with the provisions of the 1968 Act, continued Mr Hynd.

• Sir Ronald Russell (Tory, Wembley South) complained about the unintelligibility of the Order, and was supported by Mr Graham Page (Tory, Crosby).

Mr John Ellis (Labour, Bristol North West), a member of the TGWU, said his union had the greatest reservation about the Order, but would not take violent exception to it provided the Minister could give assurances that he was not satisfied with the situation.

It was deplorable that men were sent out to drive heavy vehicles for long periods, said Mr Ellis. The community must face this situation and provide higher wages to attract men into the industry so that they could work more civilized hours having regard to the conditions on the roads today.

Mr Leslie Huckfield (Labour, Nuneaton) submitted that when any Statutory Instrument was brought before the Commons referring to a reduction in bus drivers' hours it would, by and large, be enforced—but that was not the case in the road haulage industry. He hoped that these permanent and temporary exemptions would soon be rendered unnecessary by an increase in wages.

The review promised by the Minister• would have to be undertaken in the light of advances in productivity represented by the increasing number of one-man-operated buses now coming into service, went on Mr Huckfield.

Summing up for the Opposition, Mr Edward Taylor (Cathcart) noted that this

was perhaps the most complicated Order die Commons had seen for a long time. It was almost a legal nightmare—yet it was important that the content and the meat of the Order should be clear to those who would be affected by it.

Mr Taylor asked for more flexibility to be given in particular cases, to cope with special circumstances. While the industry was grateful for the concessions made by the Order, its gratitude could be compared with the position of an innocent man whose prison sentence was reduced from 10 to five years.

Did the Minister intend to give the Traffic Commissioners the right to issue exemptions in certain circumstances?

Mr Taylor also wanted to know whether the Order would result in the employment of more part-time drivers. There were, he said, strong feelings in one of the unions involved that this was not the way to solve the problem of shortage of drivers.

Mr Mulley explained that the complications of the Order had resulted in a fortnight's delay in the date when it came into operation—March 15 instead of March 1. A committee of MPs examining the Order had asked for further explanations and information, and he had thought it right to add 14 days since the committee met at fortnightly intervals.

Mr Mulley willingly conceded that the Order presented great complexity, but said that the capacity of those working in the industry had possibly been underrated. They were familiar with the whole concept of scheduling, and indeed in each garage there was a committee of the men which was concerned with the management in working out the schedules.

Mr Mulley said he believed that when the Order was brought into operation, the operators and unions would see the need to improve efficiency and recruitment so that they could face the situation when these temporary exemptions expired.


comments powered by Disqus