Examination of Witnesses (Questions 460-479)
26 MAY 2004
RT HON
ALISTAIR DARLING
MP, MR JOHN
STEVENS AND
MR MICHAEL
SMETHERS
Q460 Mr Stevenson: I thought it was Michael.
Mr Darling: If the costs go up,
here is your man! Do you want to say something about the costs?
Mr Smethers: We are obviously
very concerned to avoid duplication of costs.
Chairman: Order. The Committee stands
adjourned. Secretary of State we need to ask you some more questions.
The Committee was suspended from 3.59 pm
to 4.10 pm for a division in the House
Q461 Mr Stevenson: One further area,
if I might, and that is the Working Time Directive and lorry drivers'
hours. Why was it necessary to extend the Working Time Directive
to lorry drivers, given that we had European regulations governing
drivers' hours in place already?
Mr Darling: I think it was primarily
driven by safety. If I remember rightly, when the Working Time
Directive was first promulgated in 1993 there were a number of
exemptions in relation to transport workers and it was felt necessary
to bring lorry drivers, in particular, within it. I think over
the last couple of years or so we were trying to get as much flexibility
as possible, which is something that I think both sides—employers
and employees—in this country wanted. Indeed, when we published
the way in which we were going to implement it it was broadly
welcomed by both sides. I think it is necessary simply because
it is a safety measure. It must be in our interests generally
to make sure that we do not have tired drivers driving lorries
round the country.
Q462 Mr Stevenson: I think we all support
that. You talk about flexibility, Secretary of State, and there
is concern about such things as the distinction made between employed
drivers and self-employed drivers. It would be interesting to
know why that extension is there. Are you concerned about it?
There are many in the industry that suggest this is going to mean
that many employers will be moving their employees over to self-employed
status and that would be detrimental. Are you concerned about
that?
Mr Darling: I would be concerned
if that happened, but the directive will apply to self-employed
people from 2009, I think, to give them time to make appropriate
arrangements. Frankly, if you are another road user, pedestrian
or driver, it does not matter to you whether the truck coming
down the road towards you is driven by an employed or a self-employed
person. Obviously, in order to make this thing work and to be
reasonable, my recollection is that originally it was not going
to apply to self-employed people at all because, of course, the
legislation, generally speaking, looks at the employer/employee
relationship, but given that so many drivers, not just in this
country but on continental Europe, are self-employed, it would
have been odd if they had been exempted. Indeed, had you exempted
them I think precisely that move you have described would have
happened. I do not think, simply because there is such a short
timescale, that it is likely to happen in quite the way that some
people fear.
Q463 Mr Stevenson: Are you satisfied
there will not be a disproportionate adverse effect on the UK
haulage industry by the inconsistent application of this Directive
throughout the European Union, given that some states, as I understand
it, have got certain exemptions?
Mr Darling: We have negotiated
a flexibility that, generally speaking, UK hauliers, no matter
what their status is, have welcomed. I think people recognise
that there has to be some framework to govern these things. We
wanted to make it as flexible as possible, recognising the peculiarities
of driving heavy goods vehicles.
Q464 Mr Stevenson: The eternal question:
how is the Government going to ensure to the maximum possible
degree that we have got a reasonably level playing field in the
European Union?
Mr Darling: You are right, no
matter what the regulation is we have to ensure, as best we can,
that if there is a rule or regulation it is applied in the same
way in each Member State. The obvious difficulty is that it is
up to Member States to enforce their own laws. Put it this way:
if other Member States were complaining about the way in which
we implement laws then people would understandably be upset. The
right thing to do, though, is if you believe that if the rules
or regulations are not being implemented in the way they should
then you take it up in the right quarters—and, ultimately,
I suppose you could go to the European Court or get the Commission
to go and do something about it. It is important that we ensure
that there is a level playing field. However, the only way we
can ensure that that is the case is to have no rules and regulations
at all, but I think most people would take the view that something
that does seek to ensure there is some control over the length
of time that someone can drive a lorry or be on duty is probably
sensible, providing it is implemented in a sensible way.
Q465 Mr Stevenson: The Working Time Directive
applies to many other industries, but in all other industries,
I think, there is an individual opt-out whereby an individual
employee can opt to work more hours, which will not be available
when this Directive is implemented next year for lorry drivers.
Why is that, given that one could make a safety argument, presumably,
if you worked in a steelworks, or whatever it maybe? Is it solely
on safety grounds?
Mr Darling: I think it is predominantly
safety. I suppose the answer is if you work in a steelworks you
tend to work on a shift and the shift comes to an end at some
point—people go home. If you are driving a lorry from Greece
to Britain and back again you want to have some sort of rule that
puts some sort of check on how long someone can actually be working
behind the wheel. You could construct an argument to extend the
Working Time Directive to some other industries, or even I suppose
you could say "Well, we need even more opt-outs in transport",
but I think what we have got is a sensible compromise. As I said
earlier, if you go right back to the roots of the Working Time
Directive there were a number of things that were pre-1993 which,
frankly, had we been better engaged on it then, would have probably
benefited us. However, in relation to lorry drivers, I think we
have come up with something that is flexible and something that
is good. It was fairly warmly welcomed which is not necessarily
the case on everything we do, as you know.
Chairman: I think, Secretary of State,
if we want to release you we are going to have to ask for shorter,
sharper answers.
Q466 Mr Stringer: Just following Mr Stevenson's
last couple of points, the hauliers, when we had them here last
week, said that they did not believe the introduction of this
new measure was a safety issue at all. Was there a regulatory
impact assessment that assessed whether this would improve safety?
If so, by how much?
Mr Darling: Can you answer that,
because I do not know offhand?
Mr Stevens: There was, Chairman.
The Commission did produce some evidence of that at the time but
I have to say it was always in debate as one of the things that
was constantly under discussion as to how far there would be benefits
or costs from this.
Q467 Mr Stringer: I do not think there
is any doubt on whether there are going to be costs; the issue
is whether there are going to be safety benefits.
Mr Stevens: There was never any
doubt about the safety side; I think people understood that this
would reduce working time hours and that would have an effect
upon safety. The difficulty was on the other side of the calculation;
it was never easy to ascertain what the costs on industry would
be. Of course, we consulted our industry in this country, but
that is the way the debate progressed.
Mr Darling: Mr Stringer, you will
recall that just about every summer we have incidents of coaches
going off the road where it has either been found or suspected
that people have fallen asleep at the wheel. Proving these things—you
can do the eyes and the rest of it—can sometimes be difficult.
I think there are two things: one is safety when we are talking
about road haulage, but I also suspect that when you look at these
things it is also to do with a desire to have reasonable employment
provisions. I suspect there is a bit of both in it.
Q468 Mr Stringer: This is the application
of one set of rules to a situation where there are already drivers'
regulations, so I think although there has to be an element of
theoretical calculation about the number of lives that are going
to be saved, I am trying to get to how many lives you believe
will be saved, because the haulage industry say none.
Mr Darling: I am interested in
how they can be so definitive as to say none.
Q469 Mr Stringer: To be fair, they say
it is not a safety issue, you said it is, so I would like to know,
in your assessment, how many lives you estimate, given all the
difficulties there are about—
Mr Darling: I am not in a position
to tell you how many lives I think it will save. What I am saying
to you, though, is that, intuitively, having some sort of control
on the amount of hours that somebody works must be the right thing.
Q470 Mr Stringer: But they are already
regulated, are they not? Is that not good enough, Secretary of
State, in this matter where extra costs are going to be put on
business?
Mr Darling: You are right, but
remember that the genesis of this is the agreement reached in
1993, so we are stuck with that. It was agreed by the government—I
am not saying we would not have reached one but I think we might
have tried to do it in a different way. There then followed this
dreadfully named Horizontal Amending Directive which implemented
these things. What we have sought to do is try and implement it
in a way that was satisfactory, both to the employers and employees
and the self-employed. As I said to Mr Stevenson, I think, on
balance, we managed to do the best we possibly could. If we had
our time over again, were we negotiating this in 1993 would we
have come to a different solution? Possibly, but that is really
impossible to say.
Q471 Mr Stringer: So you cannot tell
us how many lives the Government believes this implementation
will save?
Mr Darling: It is terribly difficult
to come up with a definitive number on something like this.
Q472 Mr Stringer: To be accurate it is
but you know as well as I do, Secretary of State, that when there
are investments made in the railways, when the case on health
and safety is made, there are standard formulae: cost against
lives, and it is a very unpleasant process—
Mr Darling: As you know, they
are the subject of some criticism.
Q473 Mr Stringer: They are, and I wondered
which ones you were using. If you are saying that this is a safety
issue I assume you would not be saying it was a safety issue without
knowing who was going to be saved or roughly how many people were
going to be saved.
Mr Darling: It is very difficult
to say. If I told you the answer was 42 you would quite rightly
raise your eyebrows and say "How on earth do you know that?"
Q474 Mr Stringer: All caveats say "This
is how the calculation is done", and of course it cannot
be accurate, which is what is said in every safety case in every
factory, applying to the railways, applying to aviation and applying
to every other sector of industry. That is how government does
its case . Why is the case not made in this example?
Mr Darling: I have explained the
history of this. The Working Time Directive was entered into 11
years ago and it was subsequently amended. What we have sought
to do is to try and get something of satisfaction to both sides.
It is terribly, terribly difficult to be certain as to what the
effect will be. Trying to prove a negative is actually very difficult.
Q475 Mr Stringer: I do not want to labour
this, Chair, but I am not asking for certainty I am asking what
case lies behind it. We all know that predicting how investment
in safety will work is not an absolute business, but I also know
that when taking decisions in every other industry and in most
of transport these assessments are made. I ask this question because
the practitioners themselves say that this is not a safety matter.
You are saying it is, I am trying to get to the bottom of why
you disagree with me.
Mr Darling: The rationale for
regulating the hours that somebody can drive is predominantly
safety. I am happy to send you all the papers—presumably
they were not locked up under the last government—I can
get.
Q476 Mr Stringer: Was the Working Time
Directive not originally social policy? Has it not been applied
in this area where there were already regulations made on safety
issues? Is that not why there is no assessment?
Mr Darling: I said to you just
a few moments ago that if you look at the Working Time Directive
itself its genesis was partly safety measures in transport and,
also, partly because of a desire to regulate relations between
employer and employee. So, yes, I do agree with that.
Q477 Mr Stringer: Just on a different
one of Mr Stevenson's questions, you were talking about bringing
air safety standards to the same level in Europe. Are you not
concerned that when, in the event, we have high standards traditionally
and in southern Europe and the newer states to the European Union
they have had lower standards, we are delaying improving our safety
standards?
Mr Darling: No.
Q478 Mr Stringer: Are you not concerned
that the recommendations made after the Manchester air disaster,
for instance, by the Air Investigation Branch have not been implemented,
by and large? One of the reasons why, we have heard in other evidence
sessions, is because we are waiting for everybody to get to the
same level. Are you not concerned about that?
Mr Darling: I would at least look
at the precise allegations you are making in relation to the Manchester
air crash, as to which ones have not been—this is the engine
fire in 1985? I would need to check that. I do not want to answer
off-the-cuff because it is rather important that we get it right.
The general point is that we do have high standards here and there
is no reason on earth why if something was required following
an AIB report, or something like that, where we needed to increase
safety that we should not do it. Indeed, all the time we are doing
it. I am not saying there are not some things that, for one reason
or another, do not get implemented—not because of what is
happening in Europe but there may be other reasons—but safety
in aviation is absolutely paramount; we have a good record and
we need to make sure that we maintain that good record. If you
have any evidence that we are not doing something because we are
being held back by others then I will happily look at it, but
I will check that Manchester position.
Q479 Mrs Ellman: You referred earlier
to the importance of influencing proposals before they are actually
published. Would you say that there is enough discussion with
the transport industry before the Commission does produce proposals?
Mr Darling: Not always, no. There
are some cases where there is and there are some cases where there
is not. We have just had an exchange with Mr Stringer in relation
to the Working Time Directive and the transport sector. Those
discussions obviously happened, to a large extent, after the original
directive was put in place. So the answer to your question is
sometimes there is discussion but sometimes there is not. Obviously,
of course, there will be cases at times when there are discussions
but no agreement. That might not be a bad thing and it sometimes
is inevitable if you are going to do something that you think
is right but others, for one reason or another, do not.
| 
