HC Deb 28 June 1972 vol 839 cc1442-97

3.31 p.m.

The Chairman

We come now to Amendment No. 461, in page 34, line 42, leave out paragraph 9, with which it will be convenient to take Amendment No. 462, in page 36, line 32, leave out paragraph 10.

Mr. James Johnson (Kingston upon Hull, West)

On a point of order. In no spirit of anger but purely for information may I seek your advice, Sir Robert? You will remember that on Clause 6 we were not allowed to discuss fisheries; neither have we been allowed to do so at any other stage of the Bill. This is an important matter to hon. Members who represent fishing ports and to many other hon. Members on both sides of the Committee who are involved in fisheries matters. Has the Leader of the House had any discussion with you as Chairman of Ways and Means about when it will be possible for the Committee to discuss fishery matters?

Dame Irene Ward (Tynemouth)

Further to that point of order, Sir Robert. I have many questions on fishing to which I should like to know the answers. It is terribly important that we should have an opportunity to discuss these matters and I should like to know when we shall get one.

The Chairman

I am sure that many hon. Members of the Committee will know that the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) has had many conversations with me in an attempt to see whether we can find a way to meet this difficulty. Unfortunately, try as we may, we have not been able to devise a way to bring the subject into order on the Bill as it is now.

I am afraid that there is little I can do to help the hon. Gentleman, but if he has any new ideas about how we might introduce the subject I am prepared to listen to him. I am sorry that I have had to rule in this way, because I quite understand the feelings of hon. Members who want to discuss the matter, but the Committee knows the difficulty in which I am placed in trying to meet everybody's requirements. I cannot hold out any strong hopes to the hon. Gentleman that I shall be able to help him, but if I can I will.

Mr. Anthony Fell (Yarmouth)

Further to that point of order, Sir Robert. It has just occurred to me that it might be possible for the Government to put down at a later stage an Amendment on the question of fisheries which would allow the House to discuss that and perhaps other matters as well.

The Chairman

I am glad to say that is not a question for me.

Mr. Neil Marten (Banbury)

Further to that point of order. You said, Sir Robert, that if we had any suggestions we might put them forward. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is here, I suggest that, instead of the debate continuing in Committee next week—after all it can be continued at any time—the two days next week should be devoted to debating the Treaty of Accession, which has never been debated. We could then debate the outstanding issues.

The Chairman

I am sure the hon. Gentleman realises that that question might properly be addressed to the Leader of the House tomorrow after his Business Statement. It is not a question for me.

Mr. James Johnson

I am grateful for your kind suggestion, Sir Robert; possibly more fertile minds than mine will devise a means by which we can get over this difficulty. I see that the Chancellor of the Duchy has made a hasty entrance behind the Chair. I hope that he is conversant with what we are saying and that he will have conversations with the Leader of the House in an endeavour to meet our request. I speak not in anger but almost in disillusionment, not in despair but in discontent that he has done nothing so far to assist hon. Members representing fishing constituencies, and I hope that he will make a statement now.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon)

Further to that point of order, Sir Robert. There should not be any misunderstanding about there having been no opportunity to debate fishing. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) said that we did not debate the Treaty of Accession; but we had some general debates on Second Reading, we have had other debates at various times, and the Opposition have had the opportunity to allocate Supply Days for that subject. We had a long debate on fishing on 15th December on the Consolidated Fund Bill. If hon. Members care to look through Hansard for the last 18 months they will see that we have had a large number of debates on this subject, and there is no misunderstanding about the general position.

Mr. Peter Shore (Stepney)

Further to that point of order, Sir Robert. The right hon. and learned Gentleman must surely know that to say that we had a debate on 15th December is particularly unacceptable to the Committee. We had that debate on fisheries before the treaties were published and before the text of the protocol and the chapter on fishing in the treaty were available to us. I am sure that on reflection the right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that that was not a good point. To meet the legitimate demands of both sides of the Committee something further is required.

Mr. Rippon

Further to that point of order, Sir Robert. We had a debate on 15th December when the position which is reflected in legal language in the Treaty was stated to the House of Commons. As the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) will recall, we were asked to ensure that the treaty was not signed before the Opposition had an opportunity in January, if they so wished, to have a day's debate on fishing. In the event they did not so wish, because, no doubt, they felt they had had a sufficient debate on 15th December, but that is not a matter for me. That is what we understood the position to be. We also had a six-day debate on Second Reading of the Bill which covered the whole range of matters.

I understand that hon. Members want to discuss some matters as frequently as possible, but the Bill has the limited objective of giving effect to the changes in our domestic law which are required to enable us to ratify the treaty.

Dame Irene Ward

I know that my right hon. and learned Friend, who sits for a constituency near mine in Northumberland, is interested in what I have to say. I have sent him a letter which I received from one of my trawler owners in which he puts forward a whole lot of new points. My right hon. and learned Friend will receive the letter tomorrow. May I ask whether, when he has had a chance to read it, he will ask his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to let me know when I may have a public answer to my letter, because there are important new points raised in it?

Mr. Rippon

My hon. Friend will appreciate that we all receive a lot of letters. Happily, some of them raise new points of one sort or another. I assure my hon. Friend that as soon as I receive her letter it will be given high priority and replied to either by myself or by the appropriate Minister and she will be able to make that reply public. I hope that we shall have no difficulty in allaying the anxiety of my hon. Friend's constituents. If we do not succeed in doing that, I know that she will come back to the fray.

Mr. Shore

I think it is inevitable that we should begin to address ourselves to the Amendments which have been selected, and I therefore beg to move Amendment No. 461, in page 34, line 42, leave out paragraph 9.

I share the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) and the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) who is now leaving the Chamber. We should have welcomed the hon. Lady's support during the debate against the guillotine about eight weeks ago. The number of hon. Members who complain about the guillotine after having voted for it and added their name to the roll of shame—which is undoubtedly what that vote will even- tually come to seem, even to those who voted for it—continues to surprise me.

It is a real matter of concern that important issues such as the fisheries agreement and that to which I shall address my remarks this afternoon—namely, transport policy—should be in the one case totally omitted and in the other reduced to a debate which, under the guillotine, has to end at 6 o'clock this afternoon.

I welcome to our debate the Minister for Transport Industries. We are today discussing for the first time one of the central policies of the Common Market and of the Treaty of Rome—namely, the common transport policy—yet we are to have only two hours in which to debate this important matter.

What we are seeking to do in these Amendments is to delete the references to transport which are tucked away in the Schedule. We are seeking to delete them because we believe that this is a classic example of the need for the Government to issue a separate statement, to have a separate debate, and to issue a separate Bill which will seek to enact the provisions of the Common Market's transport policy into the law of this land.

This is a classic example of the great error made by the Government in deciding not to have a harmonising Bill or Bills. We are faced with a two-hour debate on a tiny bit of a Schedule. That is the nearest that we can get to debating this matter, and I think that I can conveniently and simply demonstrate my point by referring, on the one hand, to the Bill as it relates to transport and pointing out to the Committee that the relevant Amendments start at the bottom of page 34 and go through to the top of page 37, while on the other—I hope that hon. Members will take note of this—there is this heavy volume of Community transport law which runs to about 297 pages. That is the match. The British Parliament is allowed to consider three pages of the Bill in 2¼ hours. The reality of the position is that we are importing into the law of this country 297 pages of European transport law.

3.45 p.m.

All that the Schedule provides is that there shall be Amendments to certain of our Transport Acts, in particular to some of the provisions of the Transport Act, 1968, and to the Road Traffic Acts, 1960, and 1972, so that certain practices in relation to the minimum driving age, to drivers' hours and to the operation of international passenger services will be dealt with in our regulations in a way that will ensure that our practices coincide with those of the Six.

The greater part of these Amendments enact Regulation 543/69 of 25th March, 1969. I am not sure what "I" in Schedule 4 relates to. I am not sure which of the regulations are involved. I have a feeling that it probably draws upon a number of them, but the more substantial part of the Schedule relates to Regulation 543/69.

These are important matters, but all this comprises only a tiny part of the Community's transport policy. Of the rest, I think we must ask how it is proposed that we should bring our practices and policies into line with those of the Six, and here I should like to have the Minister's guidance in what is essentially an exploratory debate, although I shall come to certain critical points in a moment.

It seems to me that what is proposed in order to align us with the transport policy of the Six is roughly this: first that in due course we shall get a number of, orders—probably late at night—either under our existing Road Traffic Acts, which make provision for that, or under Clause 2(2) of the Bill. I asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman about the use of Clause 2(2) as he saw it during this year and next and he was good enough to tell me what he expected.

In a written reply on 18th May there were a number of references. First, orders will be made in 1972 on motor insurance to cover compulsory insurance liabilities in other member States. I do not know anything beyond that, nor does anyone else. As for next year, 1973, there will be orders covering statistics of international movement of goods by road, a further one on the collection of information about transport infrastructure, and a further order on the discrimination in rates and conditions for the transport of goods. Those will be substantial orders, and no doubt if the Minister felt it useful for us to see them in draft form the House could see them at almost any time. That is undoubtedly one way in which it is proposed to bring us into line with the Six.

The second way is that we shall get Ministers, particularly those dealing with the public sector of transport—when one considers railways, road haulage and the National Bus Corporation one realises that the public sector is a large one indeed—seeking to meet their new Community obligations by refraining to use the powers which they have, in relation to the nationalised transport industries, or perhaps simply using those powers in new ways.

I have in mind the statement volunteered in relation to the steel industry by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industy on Clause 2(2) at an earlier stage in our debates. If I am right in this, if the Minister is to impose upon himself, as it were, a self-denying ordinance in relation to the use of his statutory powers I hope that he will tell us so when he replies to the debate.

The third and main way in which we shall be aligned with the Six in transport—this relates to the main body of European transport law contained in this volume—onwhich I seek confirmation, is that it will simply take effect. It will become the law of this land in the main part from 1st January, 1973; or, if my reading of certain provisions is correct, some of the laws will come into effect automatically after three, six or even nine months from the opening date. Am I right in believing that, without being read, discussed, enacted or understood in any way, these new laws affecting transport in Britain will substantially take effect, without any parliamentary process having taken place, by 1st January, 1973, and not later than 1st January, 1974? I believe that I am right. If I am wrong, I hope the Minister will rise quickly to correct me.

So substantial and far-reaching changes will be introduced into our transport policies without these policies being discussed. I worry about that, because I fear that many people who will be affected, ordinary citizens who are employed in the transport industries, will not even know what obligations are or will shortly be expected of them. I say with great conviction that if the Community transport policy is as perfect as the Solicitor-General believes the Bill to be, to enact it in this way is an insult to the Committee and is almost self-defeating in the sense that it will not be understood by those to whom it is addressed and upon whom the obligations are to fall.

Mr. Marten

The point the right hon. Gentleman is making is emphasised by the corrections which have been issued. There are three pages of corrections for the one document that the right hon. Gentleman waved in the air. The first reads: Content lists refers to traffic in the first three agreements. It should read tariffs. If we are passing that sort of legislation, God help this House.

Mr. Shore

The hon. Gentleman is right. As he has raised this point, I should like to supplement it. It is extraordinarily difficult—I am sure hon. Members on both sides will agree—to track down these Community laws and the dates on which they are to take effect in this country. The layout of the Treaty of Accession is such that the first volume contains no mention of transport, just as in the main part of the Bill there is no mention of transport. We simply find a few paragraphs in Schedule 4, to which I have referred. It is in Volume 2 of the Treaty of Accession that we find dotted about—I deliberately say "dotted about"—lists and headings of those Community laws which are to take effect in this country, the minor or major amendments which are being made to those laws, and, in addition, the operative dates when they are to come into effect. I cannot conceive of a more difficult way or a way more designed to baffle and confuse ordinary citizens and the people involved in the transport industries than that which is devised in the treaties and Bill.

If the Chancellor of the Duchy wants these European laws obeyed, he will have to find some way, in the first instance, of bringing them home and telling people about them and what is in them. Even if the policy were perfect, this would be a ludicrous way of enacting the common transport policy in this country. We ought to be able to see it as a whole. We ought to be able to have a major debate on its principles and then on the particular provisions of the Bill to carry it out. But it is not perfect. That is obvious to everybody who has glanced at it.

In the few minutes which I am now going to take—I am conscious of the pressure of time—I shall put to the Minister a number of issues which these Community transport laws raise. One concerns the Euro-lorry. As we all know, agreement was reached last month among the Six on the size, loaded weight and, most important, axle weight, of Continental heavy lorries. The different maxima which now exist in the different countries of the Six will be replaced by a single European standard. That standard is to be based upon the 11-ton axle weight and the 40-ton loaded weight. Our own standards, our own maxima, are a 32-ton loaded and a 10-ton axle weight. It follows, therefore, that we must face the prospect of a substantial increase in the size of lorries upon our already worn and over-used road system in the years ahead.

What makes this to me and, I am sure, to many people in the country peculiarly offensive is, first, that to most people the existing maxima are high enough. There is hardly a person in the country who does not wish for a reduction in both the size and the number of these large, noisy, damaging vehicles, which blot out the view of other motorists, shake the structure of our houses in the rather narrow roads and streets with houses fronting on them, and spread noise and fumes throughout town and country. Moreover, I doubt whether there are many on the Continent who would not wish that a lower standard had been adopted.

So, once again—I say "once again", because I have in mind certain other matters which we discussed last week on which we have to adopt what everybody agrees is a less generous, less to be preferred Community preference system relating to developing countries—we have to harmonise with Europe and adopt a standard which, by general consent, is worse than our own practice and is one which we would not wish in any way to adopt.

What makes it even more maddening is that there is no urgency about it. It is a long protracted timetable. We cannot suddenly say to six, or, indeed, to ten countries which have been following different transport regulations that they shall, as of next year or the year after, get rid of their present maxima and use new ones. It has to be done over a period of years. So we are planning now for a deterioration in our environmental standards which will only become effective by 1980. That is an astonishing thing for the Committee to contemplate.

I have yet another point on this matter. It is almost an impertinence that this matter of deciding the standards of the Euro-lorry, which has waited some 10 years in Europe for agreement and on which it is known that we and other applicant countries have strong views, should be brought to the point of decision a few months in advance of what the Government hope will be the entry date for Europe.

We all know that the Minister for Transport Industries—all honour to the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks—strongly objected. It was good to hear a voice speaking for this country. My only feeling is that it is a pity the Minister was not able to make more speeches on the subject and sustain his objection, which I am sure is deep and conscientious, to this whole proposition.

4.0 p.m.

What worries me, and I believe, also worries the right hon. Gentleman, is the knowledge that this decision will be made—and it will be a decision that we shall have to accept—under the appallingly lax agreement made by the Chancellor of the Duchy and that, regardless of our own views and wishes, we shall have to accept the decision from the time we go in. If I am wrong and if at this stage we can still say "No" to the Euro-lorry and "No" to the new standards, I shall be delighted to hear it and shall at once withdraw what I have said. But if all we can do is to hope to mitigate the effect by trying to limit the routes on which they can run, it makes my point and it will be a great pity if this happens.

My second point of concern relates to the effect of Community law on another aspect of the environment; namely, the compensation code, a code which the Six are hoping to agree for those whose properties and welfare are blighted by major road construction. This is an important matter, and, clearly, our attitude to the European proposals will be greatly influenced by whether or not the proposed European code makes more or less generous compensation than we do. If their compensation standards are higher we shall welcome them, but if they are lower than our standards and if it prevents the advance of our own practice of compensating people—not people in the direct path of motorways and the like but people whose whole outlook and environment is over-shadowed by new public works—in other words, if anything to which we agree will delay the possibility of improving our compensation arrangements for such people, it will be a sad matter indeed. I leave it to the Minister to develop this point since he will know far more clearly than we do precisely to which part of these many regulations he will wish to draw attention.

Thirdly, I turn to the question of State aids. This is of crucial importance in transport policy and has been the subject of many Acts of Parliament and even more debates. We have sought in the past to establish the principle of support for public service transport and to discover how far we should depart from purely market calculations; we have also sought to establish the right relationship between different forms of transport, particularly road and rail. We have spent a great deal of parliamentary time on these questions.

We have now not only to consider these traditional and difficult problems but to examine them in a new framework of Europe, in which the prime concern of the law-makers in Brussels is to prevent one nation State giving what the Commission believes to be undue, and, indeed, a distorted, advantage to its own transport undertakings. This is the subject matter of a major regulation—that of 4th June, 1970, 1107/70. It is bound to have considerable consequences on our own practices.

We have not had time to discover how this will affect our regional policy. This will be extremely important for remote parts of Britain. It is important that we should not be forced into a transport pricing régime which makes it even more difficult for firms in, say, Scotland or other remote parts of the country to be competitive because they have to impose the full and often costly transport charges. We have a system which involves the pooling of transport costs; indeed, a substantial part of our pricing policy is based on a pooling of costs between one part of the country and another. I believe that there are special arrangements in this regard.

I am worried not only about the EEC Treaty in this respect but about the provisions of the ECSC Treaty, which lays down precise demands on transport costing in the movement of coal and steel. This means that we shall be forced to charge higher freight costs to our enterprises in distant parts of the country.

My last point concerns the other side of the coin of competition; namely, the attempt by the EEC to harmonise conditions of work in the road transport industry. This matter is dealt with in Item H of Schedule 4. We are required by 1976 to adopt Continental practices relating to rest periods, working hours and the like. We are further required to introduce the tachograph, which is a somewhat controversial device.

How far these matters are sensible is difficult at present to assess but any proposals, however sensible they might appear, will not be sensible unless there is an understanding and acceptance of them by the lorry drivers themselves and their trade union. The Minister would be very unwise—and I do not think he is unwise on these matters—if he did not realise that lorry drivers are men of great independence. One reason why people become lorry drivers is that they do not like being pushed around; they want to be themselves. They will not submit easily to inspection systems and devices unless they are persuaded that they will be beneficial to them and to their industries.

This underlines the importance of not legislating in these subjects in a hole-in-the-corner manner. We should have a frank, full and coherent public debate about future transport policy. We are being denied such a debate. It is this situation to which we are seeking to draw attention in this Amendment. I hope we shall persuade the Minister to say that he fully understands our object and will seek to persuade the Chancellor of the Duchy to come forward with a separate Bill covering common transport policy.

Colonel Sir Tufton Beamish (Lewes)

I welcome this debate on these important matters. The right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) has raised a number of questions which should be fully discussed. We all agree about the importance of such questions as the limits on drivers' duty hours—though it must be said that no limit is imposed in the Community regulations—the age at which certain classes of vehicle may be driven, and various other matters. The Committee will note that eight hours is suggested in the Amendment as the maximum daily driving period compared with 10 hours at present.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield (Nuneaton)

Eleven hours.

Sir T. Beamish

There is also the question of the maximum distances which may be covered, the distance proposed being 460 kilos, roughly 280 miles.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell (Wolverhampton, South-West)

Did my hon. and gallant Friend say "kilos" or "kilometres"?

Sir T. Beamish

I am attempting a short paraphrase, and it is obviously not what my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) understands by the word. I often refer to kilometres as kilos.

Mr. Powell

I am surprised that my hon. and gallant Friend did not get in return something of a more substantial character.

Sir T. Beamish

I stand corrected. I shall refer to them as kilometres, and I only hope that at least my right hon. Friend will agree with my pronunciation.

These are all important matters, and I am glad the Committee has this opportunity to discuss them.

My right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries is in a very powerful position this year. He is President of the European Ministers of Transport Committee, and he has taken advantage of that fact this year—he was very active last year as well—to ensure that Britain's point of view on all the matters raised in both Amendments is understood fully.

Broadly speaking, in my view the proposals that we shall have to incorporate into our domestic law are reasonable. I do not suggest that they would have been exactly in their present form if we had been founder members. I am sure that we should have had strong views to express. However, we can hardly expect to join a club a good many years after its formation and find it exactly as we should like. Nevertheless, the proposals covered by the Amendment are acceptable, and, what is more, we should bear in mind that it will be possible to modify them without great difficulty. Some are already being changed in the light of experience. It is also important to remember that we are in an excellent position to ask for modifications.

If we were not to join the Community we should find that British lorries or passenger vehicles going to Community countries were subject to restrictive practices over which we had no control. Generally speaking, these are the non-tariff barriers, and I feel that throughout this Committee stage too little attention has been paid to the fact that if we were outside the Community British exports and movements such as those that we are discussing could and would be inhibited by these non-tariff barriers. The fact that we are members gives us a say at the centre, and I have no doubt that there will be all kinds of modifications. The fact that the Community is to be enlarged from Six to Ten means that all kinds of new and different aspects of these questions will arise.

Under paragraph 9 a very genuine attempt has been made over a long period of years to find common ground between the existing members in order to provide good working conditions in safety without unnecessary rules and regulations. I am sure that my right hon. Friend's influence, which is considerable, will be used to ensure that there is a free flow of road vehicles within the Community in this country and in the other Community countries with the minimum of red tape.

I see all these questions in the context of the common transport policy which it is being sought to harmonise within the Community. It is still in its very early stages. To hear the right hon. Member for Stepney, one would think that remarkable progress had been made. In fact, in 15 years very little progress has been made. These matters do not move very fast.

Mr. Marten

My hon. and gallant Friend is certainly right about that.

Sir T. Beamish

One of the bogies constantly put up by the anti-Europeans is that we shall suddenly find ourselves having matters forced down our throats that we have had no opportunity to consider—

Mr. Marten

I wish that my hon. and gallant Friend would not use the expression "anti-Europeans".

Sir T. Beamish

I shall use it. This is a free country. I am allowed to use whatever phraseology I like. I was not meaning to be controversial—

Mr. Marten

Then name them. Who is anti-European?

Sir T. Beamish

My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) ought not to get steamed up about this. In the context of the European Community my hon. Friend is anti-European, and I can think of a great many more right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. The right hon. Member for Stepney is against joining Europe on any conceivable terms. He is an anti-European as well. However, I have strayed away from the subject matter of these Amendments because of the fly that was put over me by my hon. Friend. I intended to use those words, and I meant them.

Mr. Marten

We shall argue about it outside.

4.15 p.m.

Sir T. Beamish

We shall argue about it everywhere—inside and outside.

I was saying that the right hon. Member for Stepney makes rather a bogy out of these matters. It is about time that we began thinking on Community lines, appreciating that we have endless opportunities to make our views known on regulations and directives of the kind that we are discussing. We have a large delegation under our permanent representative in Brussels which is constantly watching these matters. There are the specialist committees, one of which deals with transport matters, where my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries has made his views known. There is the Economic and Social Committee, where leading trade unionists concerned with safety on the roads, drivers' hours, the size of vehicles and so on ought to be making their views known instead of absenting themselves as they have done in past months. That has been a great mistake. If we are to join, let us try to make a success of it. It is no good turning our backs on Europe. It is the duty of British trade unionists to enmesh themselves with European trade unionists in Brussels and elsewhere and to make known Britain's views about the subjects that we are discussing.

The Community is a slow moving vehicle. It has issued only a comparatively small number of regulations and directives on transport services. We have to incorporate those which are in force into our domestic law. Since I am not prepared to make a mountain out of a small molehill, I find them almost entirely acceptable.

I turn now to Amendment No. 462. As I see it, there are good reasons for exempting from British licensing control road passenger vehicles coming to the United Kingdom from other member States. Similarly, I am pleased to learn that our own vehicles on international shuttle services and regular services will be exempt from the licensing controls of member countries. The more freedom there can be in these matters, the better. Within the Community, frontiers must mean less and less in terms of trade and movement.

One benefit arising from the exemption will be very much to the advantage of coach trips to the Continent, which are being run on an ever-increasing scale. At one time, I was a director of a bus company which had a connection with this business—

Mr. Eric S. Heffer (Liverpool, Walton)

I bet the hon. and gallant Gentleman never drove a bus across.

Sir T. Beamish

It was the East Kent Bus Company. It was a very good company, although the return on the capital employed was remarkably small and it was delighted when it was nationalised. However, that company used to run a great many trips from Dover and Folkestone to the Continent. The red tape and complications involved were remarkable, and it is good to know that it will be easier to run coach trips of this type in future and not have to cut through so much red tape.

I turn now to a subject which is of special interest to me. It is the quota system affecting lorries. There is not much point in discussing lorry drivers' hours, passenger vehicles crossing frontiers without unnecessary problems and the other matters dealt with in these Amendments if the non-tariff barrier in the shape of the quota system interferes with the free flow of trade.

It is contrary to one of the basic principles of the Treaty of Rome that trade should be distorted. But it is distorted very seriously by the present quota system, as my right hon. Friend has admitted. This has very little to do with the Common Market. The quota system exists in any event. However, I look to the Commission and the Council of Ministers to sort out this matter.

In a very interesting interview that my right hon. Friend gave to The Times on 18th January he said: The quota system, under which individual countries of the Six restrict the number of journeys by lorries from outside their borders, greatly embarrasses and inconveniences our hauliers, and we want liberalisation….The Six as a whole have yet to make a policy….Our entry will strengthen the numbers of those wanting liberal policies. This is good news, and I believe it to be perfectly true.

I have had many complaints from my constituents. I do not have a great deal of industry in the Lewes constituency. Newhaven is one of the Channel ports, and, together with the town of Burgess Hill, there are probably 70 or 80 factories, mostly light industry. We are very much interested in road haulage in Newhaven. We look forward to getting some better roads because the access to our ports does not compare with the access to continental ports. Until we get some growth in the economy there will not be enough to spend on improving our roads.

I put a Question down on the quota system on 8th March to my right hon. Friend asking about the 1972 quotas for commercial vehicles permitted to carry goods to and through Europe, especially to France, Western Germany and Italy. I drew his attention to the fact that they fell very far short of the United Kingdom requirement. I was pleased with his forthright reply. He said: I estimate that the 1972 Italian quota, which has recently been agreed, will only meet about half the genuine demand. That is really quite scandalous. It is an altogether unnecessary and narrow national restriction. He went on: The proportions for France and Western Germany are about three-fifths and four-fifths respectively. I am well aware of the difficulties caused by these restrictions and will continue to urge the need for liberalisation at every conceivable opportunity"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th March, 1972; Vol. 832, c. 326.] I am pleased to note that the Community quota system is due to be reviewed before the end of this year, and I hope that the emphasis will increasingly be on multilateral quotas, not bilateral quotas. There is a big job of work for the Commission here so as to liberalise trade within the Community and conform with one of the basic principles of the Treaty of Rome. The Commission has already proposed that bilateral agreements should be regularly reviewed so as to match growth in demand. This is a serious matter, and I do not raise it in any way as an isolationist or from any narrow national viewpoint.

I am not saying that British goods should be carried in British vehicles or anything like that. I am saying that the present quota system is quite impossible, that we want more liberal trade and a freer movement of vehicles. I am confident that my right hon. Friend and the Government as a whole will use all their influence in this way.

I had wanted to say something about axle loads and lorry sizes because my constituency is being shaken to pieces by these colossal vehicles. Lewes is one of the most beautiful mediaeval towns in the country, and there is hardly a row of houses that has not been scraped by these vehicles on the route that they have to use. Until we are able to improve our road system we shall have to be much more active in restricting these enormous vehicles to certain roads.

Newhaven is a Channel port of increasing importance, and the road communications north and south are deplorable. There is a bridge in Newhaven which ought to have been pulled down about 50 years ago. Thank heavens, the bridge across the Ouse is to be replaced. Until that happens, because the port of Newhaven is on the east side of the river, these great vehicles, rather than use a thoroughly inadequate B road up the east side of the valley, are crashing their way through some of the most beautiful villages in the country, places like Alfriston, which many hon. and right hon. Gentlemen will know.

This is not really a Common Market problem at all. We are not members yet; this is normal trade being carried on with our neighbours across the Channel. This situation would arise whether or not we had applied to join. It is a serious matter, and we have to treat it as such. Our trunk roads are not adequate, even for the present size and speed of vehicles, and we shall have to maintain some restrictions. I am sure that the Government will be firm in insisting that this is not the time to raise axle loads or vehicle length, or overall loads. We shall have to keep the restrictions until we are in a position to handle larger vehicles. They are large enough already.

There should be much greater expenditure on our road system. Anyone who has been in Belgium recently—to Antwerp, for instance—must have been enormously impressed by the excellence of the roads serving it. Only 12 or 14 years ago Belgium was a poor little country. It has benefited enormously in terms of growth in gross national product as a result of joining the Community, as I am confident we shall. When we get some growth in the economy there will be more money to spend on our roads, and it is certainly badly needed.

This is a useful debate because there is barely a constituency in the country which is not interested in the subject. It is rather pathetic that there are only six or eight hon. Members sitting opposite, which has been the case practically throughout this Committee stage. They show an astonishing lack of interest in these important matters. Reading the newspapers, one might think that the Chamber was jammed and an enormous debate was taking place, with great enthusiasm on both sides. This is not true at all. To have more than a dozen hon. and right hon. Gentlemen present has been unusual.

I urge my right hon. Friend to use all his influence in the interests of greater harmonisation and liberalisation of transport in the EEC.

Mr. Stanley Orme (Salford, West)

In following the extraordinary speech by the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) I must say that I was not sure whether it was a Second Reading speech on the EEC Bill or a maiden speech dealing with his constituency. However, I understand that he has been here for some considerable time.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield

Where?

Mr. Orme

There were many contradictions inherent in the hon. and gallant Member's speech. I want to concentrate on the point he made about heavy lorries.

There is a good deal of concern in the country as further aspects of EEC policy are unfolded. The British people are beginning to have brought home to them the impact of this move. It is interesting how the Press has suddenly found out about the problem of lorries and how the EEC regulations will lead to an extension of the use of these lorries.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman spoke of the threat posed by an increase in the weight and size of these vehicles and said that the problem was here, irrespective of whether we were in the Community. I accept that the threat is here; but what he did not say was that if we join the Common Market the whole process, backed by these regulations, will be speeded up and our chances of controlling the lorries will be greatly diminished.

There is a conflict here between the needs of industry and the problems of the environment. In a heavily populated country such as ours we cannot go on developing roads to cater for lorries of increasing size. If we do so the country will be one vast "Spaghetti Junction." As a result we have to look for transport policies which can remove much of this pressure from the roads and transfer it, through a properly planned transport system, to the railways, the waterways and other means of transport. Those of us who have seen these large lorries operating in West Germany, Holland and other countries realise that once this sort of development is under way it is exceedingly difficult to stop it.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. John H. Osborn (Sheffield, Hallam)

Is the hon. Member supporting or rejecting the idea of a 40-ton lorry as a harmonised standard?

Mr. Orme

I am rejecting it. I should have thought, from the tenor of my remarks, that it would be obvious that I was objecting to it.

Mr. Heffer

The hon. Gentleman is a little dim.

Mr. Orme

I want to deal with the top weight limits. In a small country like Holland, it is 50 tons. In Italy, it is 44 tons. At the other end of the scale, in Great Britain, it is 32 tons. Axle weight limits range between 13 tons in France and Italy and 10 tons in Britain, Denmark and Ireland. The recent meetings of the EEC Council of Transport Ministers agreed to a limit of 40 tons per lorry and 11 tons per axle, and to the concession that each member country would keep its own rules until 1980.

Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore), I feel that what the Minister for Transport Industries said in the telegram that he sent was very creditable. He put forward to the EEC a British point of view. That has been sadly lacking on many of the major issues. The right hon. Gentleman stated some strong terms. He said that Britain would maintain a 10-ton axle limit and that any higher limit would necessitate £200 million being spent on repairing roads and strengthening bridges and there would be a pollution problem and a risk of damage to historic buildings. Historic buildings are important and I am all for their preservation. But there are many tens of thousands of ordinary houses in this country which are old and of poor fabric, in which people have to live until those houses can be replaced. Such houses would suffer considerable damage from constant vibration.

It has been said that we could restrict these lorries to certain roads. That is easier said than done. If that were done, what would it mean? It would mean that, for instance, through the constituency of the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes and elsewhere we should have to create a super highways to channel these lorries between our ports and the main centres of industry. A concentration on the development of such highways would be tremendously costly as well as detrimental to the environment. Many people who drive along our main motorway, the M1, know how inadequate that road is now for the type of vehicles that are using it.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield

Cars.

Mr. Orme

Of course, many cars use that road. But one is constantly faced with long lorries capable of high speeds. One shudders to think of the type of lorry which will be possible in a few years' time. Many hon. Members will have seen the types of lorry which travel between California and Canada. Everyone will say, "In no circumstances would we contemplate having that weight, length and width of lorry on our roads". But we have come a long way from the average lorry we used to see to those on our roads now. I do not want to see in this country some of the lorries of Germany with trailers swinging along behind them. That point of view does not go against economic development, the movement of essential goods, or industrial growth. There are more sensible ways of using technology and means of transport than imposing this type of lorry upon our roads at present.

My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield), has taken a great interest in this matter. He said on a number of occasions that on our roads at present there are probably lorries which are over weighted, carrying up to 40 tons. This matter is very much like having a speed limit of 30 miles an hour, when the acceptable speed becomes 40 or 45 miles an hour. In consequence, using my hon. Friend's argument, if one raises the limit to 40 tons, before one knows where one is, certain unscrupulous people will load lorries to 45 tons or 50 tons, and consequential vibration problems will arise.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield

Does my hon. Friend also take account of the fact that we have a totally inadequate number of weighbridges and a totally inadequate number of weights and measures inspectors? How can he possibly talk about enforcement of present standards? I am not praising the enforcement but pressing for more enforcement.

Mr. Orme

My hon. Friend will admit that on present standards of enforcement the regulations are being widely broken. I want to close the door. I do not want to open the door and, when everything has gone through, say, "We shall try to control it"

Much of this pressure for transport development, particularly in the EEC, is way ahead of the problems of the environment. Many of those who concern themselves with environmental problems have neither the resources nor the facilities to press these matters home. We are possibly further ahead than most Western European countries in our concern for the environment. Consequently, we should be taking a retrograde step if we just accepted these developments. The EEC is taking a retrograde step. Why should we join this rat race? Despite what the Minister said and the support for the strong and unequivocal manner in which he put the matter to the transport Ministers at Brussels, the right hon. Gentleman should recognise that by 1980, willy nilly, we shall have to accept the terms of the European transport Ministers. The Minister said that between now and then we must construct better roads and provide better facilities, and restrict these lorries to particular routes and so on. We have limited resources. I have often said that under a Labour Government, with all the cuts we got, the one major cut which was not put into force was on the road programme. One can argue about priorities. I am doing that at present. I do not believe that our priorities are to create roads to carry lorries of the size we are talking about when we need industrial development, full employment, more houses and economic growth.

Therefore, what proposals does the Minister have and what steps will he take to make the views of Parliament more forcibly known to the EEC Ministers? We are entitled to know what Britain's proposals are. The Amendments are sensible. They would remove the necessity to carry out the proposals in the Bill. I invite the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes, who showed such great concern, to join us in the Lobby.

This is an issue of paramount importance for this country. It touches on a vital aspect of our life and on the right of Britain to decide its own policy in matters of industrial development and environment. I hope that the Amendments will be carried.

Mr. David Waddington (Nelson and Colne)

This is proving a most interesting debate but I have my doubts about its relevance to the Bill. The right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) said the Government were in error in not having introduced a long harmonising Bill in which, Clause by Clause, was set out the obligations in the transport field which the Government would be accepting if we entered the EEC. Few of us have any doubts that if the Labour Government had been returned to power in 1970 and had introduced a long harmonising Measure, they would have been in the happy position of finding a Tory Opposition not prepared to go back on what it had been saying before the election. The long harmonising Measure would have gone through the House like a dose of salts. We all know one of the reasons why a shorter Bill has been introduced.

My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) was right when he said that we would have to face the problem of the Euro-lorry even if we did not join the Common Market. All of us acknowledge the importance of international trade and most of us desire more of it. Most of us acknowledge the necessity of an increase in our trade with Europe. I am sure that the most dedicated opponents to entry into the Community must say at some time that they look forward to increased trade between Britain and Europe.

Everyone should acknowledge that it is desirable to aim for European standards on vehicle weights. The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) made a most interesting contribution and I do not quarrel with anything he said about the peril to the environment which can result from heavier lorries on our roads. But he was less than fair to the Community when he said at one stage that it had taken a retrograde step in arriving at the European standard of 40 tons laden weight, when in the very next sentence he acknowledged that the limit represented a substantial reduction in some EEC countries. To acknowledge that fact is to acknowledge that 40 tons is a compromise. The Europeans are trying to arrive at an agreed international standard and even if we were not seeking entry into the Common Market we would still be trying to arrive at that agreed international standard.

Mr. Shore

May I explain the point my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) was making, although he is quite capable of making it for himself? He was saying that it would be a retrograde step for Britain to adopt this standard even though it might be an improvement on some of the standards already operative in the Six. That is the point to which the hon. and learned Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington) should address himself. Why should we adopt a standard that we and people in Europe believe to be a worse standard than the one we already have?

[Sir ALFRED BROUGHTONin the Chair]

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Waddington

The right hon. Gentleman must make his own speech and indeed he has made one already. I noted carefully what the hon. Member for Salford, West said. He was making the point that I repeated, not the point that the right hon. Gentleman has just made. The arguments advanced by the hon. Member were perfectly fair but at one stage he did say that the Europeans had taken a retrograde step. I pointed out that that was not right because the Europeans had arrived at an agreed international standard which represented an increase in loaded weight for some countries and a reduction for others.

Mr. Orme

rose—

Mr. Waddington

I will give way to the hon. Member in a moment. If Britain is to aim for increased trade with other countries, whether with European countries or across the Atlantic, it must surely aim for a reduction in non-tariff barriers to trade which were mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes.

Mr. Orme

The EEC proposal would mean a reduction in lorry weights in two countries but it would mean an increase in eight out of the enlarged Community of ten countries. Does the hon. and learned Member believe that to be retrograde?

Mr. Waddington

I have not worked out the batting average or what would be the average reduction, bearing in mind the degree of transport facilities in each of the countries concerned. I do not believe that is relevant to the argument. But the fact remains—and I would have thought that any hon. Member would acknowledge it—that if we are to agree on international standards to try to reduce non-tariff barriers to trade there must be give and take. There must be compromise, and that is precisely what has happened on the Continent. The question of standards for all weights will have to be faced whether we stay out of the EEC or go in. Everyone would acknowledge that whatever happens we must try to arrive at agreed international standards because if we do not the opportunities for expanding trade will not materialise.

The only other matters I would mention are also concerned with the right hon. Gentleman's introductory remarks. He referred en passant, if I may use European expression, to the possibility of the compensation code in force within the Communities being less generous than the compensation code in this country. That is a matter with which I would certainly ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to deal. I know of no evidence to suggest that the compensation code would be less generous in the EEC. There are many warts on our own compensation code and we have nothing to be proud of. Many improvements are necessary.

The right hon. Gentleman also said that entry into the Community will mean that we shall have to conform to its drivers' hours regulations. I seem to remember when the Transport Act, 1968, was introduced that we were told by the Labour Government that one of the principal justifications for it was the need to improve road safety in Britain by restricting drivers' hours still further. Yet we find now that the Europeans are imposing harsher standards than we impose. Apparently they are aiming for eight hours a day rather than ten hours a day. I do not know which way hon. Members on the Opposition benches are arguing. They do not seem to be arguing in the same direction as that in which they were arguing in 1968. They have always paraded their interest in road safety and I cannot see how they can now say with a straight face that we should not embrace the European regulations because they will fetter and bind us because they are more stringent than those in force in this country. I see nothing to fear from our obligations in this regard. I see nothing to fear in the fact that we must fulfil those obligations if we enter the Community.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield

I do not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman knows anything about the subject. It is not driving time that the regulations are about but non-driving time. The whole point about the European regulations is that they do not specify what non-driving time is. Theoretically a driver may be limited to eight hours' driving time, but there is no limit on non-driving time.

Mr. Waddington

I take the hon. Gentleman's point, and he will no doubt make it when he makes his own speech. What I am saying is amply justified by what the right hon. Gentleman said about the tachograph. For years and years Labour hon. Members have told us how keen they are on road safety. But when the Europeans introduce a device to enforce the regulations for road safety more rigorously than they are enforced in this country, they say, "We cannot have that." They say that that is an argument for not entering the Community, and that is the end of their case.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield

It is with mixed feelings that I follow the hon. and learned Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington), because obviously he has misunderstood the whole point of the regulations on drivers' hours. I recognised his brief, because I have heard those words before, but I could not quite trace the source.

I was even more perplexed by the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish), who at one stage seemed to argue that we needed more and bigger lorries provided they were not in his constituency. Apart from the omission to pay tribute to his predecessor, his speech had the hallmarks of a very good maiden speech.

I am in some disagreement with some of my hon. Friends. It is not the first time we have disagreed on transport policies, and it is not the first time we have argued about the consequences of the 1968 Transport Act. We spent about six months in Standing Committee on that Measure, which was far less comprehensive than the part of the treaty and articles we are discussing, but today we have less than two hours under the guillotine. Hon. Members on both sides who have protested about the critical curtailment of the rights of the House and Parliament's sovereignty should bear in mind the comparison.

I cannot subscribe to some of the Piltdown Man transport policies sometimes echoed from my side of the Chamber. I do not wish my speech to be understood as being dogmatically in favour of heavy lorries. If I see headlines in the newspapers tomorrow morning saying that the Member for Nuneaton supports heavier lorries, that is not the main stress I want to make. [An HON. MEMBER: "They will not mention my hon. Friend."] I am working on that. I want to stress the facts of the matter and put the whole argument about 40 tons gross weight in perspective. I know the accusations I shall hear afterwards. May I stress that I do not receive a regular cheque from the Road Haulage Association, that I am not a director of a road transport firm, like some hon. Members on the Government benches. I am the son of an engine driver, so my interests in transport are pretty catholic. I cannot help feeling that hon. Members on both sides who have talked about the question of 40 tons gross weight have not put the facts in their true perspective, and that is what I should like to do.

If we properly restrict the activities of heavier goods vehicles and increase the stringency with which we enforce standards, I believe that an increase to 39.3 tons—that is what it would be, for we are talking of 40 Continental tons—could improve our environment, because it would result in a reduction in the number of heavy goods vehicles. I should like to give some figures produced by the Road Research Laboratory. Between 1965 and 1970 we had a reduction of 0.6 per cent. in the number of heavy goods vehicles operating on our roads, from 638,000 to 620,000. Since operators' licensing was introduced as a part consequence of the 1968 Act in 1970, we have seen a further reduction in heavy goods vehicles of 56,000. Therefore, there is every evidence to suggest that with an increase in the size of lorries and an increase in productivity it is possible to obtain a reduction in the number of lorries. We have seen it already. Between 1965 and 1970 the goods carried increased from 68.8 thousand million tonne-kilometres to 83.1 thousand million tonne-kilometres, but the number of vehicle-kilometres, which is the measure of distance that lorries travel, increased only from 18.20 thousand million kilometres to 18.93 thousand million kilometres. In other words, there was a fairly substantial increase in the freight tonnage carried by road but a very small increase in the number of vehicle-kilometres required to carry that traffic. Far fewer lorries were doing far more work.

Mr. Russell Johnston (Inverness)

I see the argument the hon. Gentleman is developing, but would he say—this is put as a non-argumentative point—that there might be a possibility that the development of larger vehicles, and therefore greater individual carrying capacities, would accelerate the movement of goods away from rail to road, resulting in the end in more vehicles on the roads?

Mr. Huckfield

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. It is a point to which I wish to come later. An increase in productivity is possible with an increase to 39.3 tons. The payload of a 40-tonner is about 27 tons. The payload of the present 32-tonner is only 22 tons. In other words, 27 32-ton lorries could be replaced by only 22 40-tonners. If the weight were raised to44 tons, which I am not advocating and which I would not support, 34 44-tonners could do the work of 46 32-tonners. I stress most emphatically that I am not here to support some of the limits that have existed on the Continent, but just to try to set the matter in its perspective. Apart from that, it would be possible with the increase envisaged to have a 1,000-ton traffic flow carried by 37 to 38 vehicles of 40 tons rather than 45 to 48 vehicles of 32 tons.

Those are figures which substantiate over and over again that with an increase in vehicle size, an increase in pay load and an increase in productivity we could have a quite severe reduction in the number of vehicles using our roads. Another example of the increase of productivity is the fact that many road haulage rates have stayed pretty well the same since the Second World War, mainly because the size of vehicles' carrying capacity, and hence productivity, has increased.

I therefore find very good reason to suggest that an increase in vehicle weights only to the extent so far agreed would ultimately involve quite a drastic drop in the number of vehicles on the road.

I also want to stress that we are talking about an increase in the length of lorries of only 0.5 metres, which is about 19.7 inches. Most important, as the Minister will realise, is that that is necessary only to carry 40-foot containers. If he is not to come up to the 40 tons gross and the additional 0.5 metres, he must recognise the logic that we shall not be able legally to carry 40-foot containers in this country. If we do not go up to 40 tons gross and do not have the extra 0.5 metres, I hope he will introduce legislation to say that the carriage of 40-foot containers in this country is illegal. If we do not go up to that weight we are denying ourselves all of the advantages of the 40-foot container which is now coming into standard operation in Europe. If the Minister does not go up to the weight which has been agreed in Europe, he will logically and legally have to ban 40-foot containers.

5.0 p.m.

The most important point is that about 40 per cent. of the carriage of goods by road is of goods influenced by weight. We are dealing primarily with things like steel, canned goods, and even whisky and wines. These are particularly the goods which, with an increase in weight permitted, could be carried with much higher productivity achievements. In other words, basic requirements like steel and canned goods would be particularly affected and improved in cost per ton carried by the increase under discussion.

The figures I am quoting come not only from the Road Research Laboratory but also from some research which is currently being undertaken at the University of Leicester.

The Minister has several times quoted the fact that we shall damage our roads to the extent of about £200 million if we go up to these figures. The 1970–71 report of the weights and measures inspectors says that in the checks the inspectors carried out in that year on a totally inadequate number of weigh- bridges, in very difficult conditions, often with weighbridges which were not suited to heavy goods vehicles, they found that 18 per cent. of the vehicles were overweight.

Apart from that, I am sure that the Minister knows that in Britain in the past, and even now, many containers which have gone by road have not been weighed. In other words, the fact that something has got "30 tons" painted on it does not mean that it has 30 tons in it. Therefore, how can the Minister say that we have not already got 40 tons gross moving by road? I suspect that the Minister knows very well that because we do not weigh contents very often, and because about one-fifth of the number of lorries that are weighed are found to be overweight, he cannot say that we have not got 40 tons gross moving already.

Consequently, how can the Minister say that we shall require £200 million for the additional damage which will be caused if these increases are allowed? We have that weight on the roads already. The Minister still says that we need £200 million for the additional damage. I should like to know more about the figures which the Minister has often quoted. Apart from that, if the right hon. Gentleman is so concerned about the damage from heavier axle loads—I recognise that there will be damage—what about all those railway bridges of the 1880s which must be being used daily by diesel locomotives with axle weights well in excess of 11 tons? If the right hon. Gentleman is worried about arched bridges—this is where the controversy arises—I suggest that he asks British Railways how heavy their axle load limit is.

I come to the point which I am sure the Minister recognises and takes near and dear to his heart. We have already had a situation where, because our regulations do not permit vehicles as large as those on the Continent, foreign manufacturers have captured 15 per cent. of the British domestic heavy goods vehicle market. It is estimated that if we do not have the increase in regulations which the Minister has been arguing about, but which has been agreed, in five years' time about 30 per cent. of the British domestic market could be captured by foreign manufacturers.

I recognise that the present limits on power-weight ratios, particularly the 6 brake horse power limit which the Minister introduced, are completely inadequate. If we are to talk of a sensible power-weight ratio, we have to go up to at least 8 brake horse power, probably up to 10 brake horse power. If we are to have higher gross ton limits, we must also have increased power-weight standards, better enforced exhaust emission standards, and better braking standards.

If the Minister is kidding himself that we can exist on the basis of existing power-weight legislation, whatever happens—whether we have the increase or not—he must tighten that up and increase the brake horse power per ton, at least to German standards and, I hope, even higher than that.

Hon. Members on both sides have made the point about designated roads, a point which has caught the eye of the Road Haulage Association, the Freight Transport Association, and other bodies. If there are designated roads, there must be trans-shipment points. If there are trans-shipment points, the cost of packaging and distribution will be increased. I have seen some valuable estimates carried out by one of the public bodies to the effect that the cost of trans-shipment could be as much as £2 per ton. In other words, if we are to have trans-shipment points and designated routes, we must be prepared to pay an increase in distribution costs.

Another point which has been made by hon. Members on both sides, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme)—I do not disagree with him with relish—is as to the possibility of transfer to rail. Though we could transfer some back to rail, as Sir Reginald Wilson, when he was Chairman of the Transport Holding Company, used to say time and time again, many such transfers are uneconomic. When Dr. Beeching was given his brief to make the railways pay, he estimated that only 90 million tons of road-borne freight was suitable for transfer to rail. That is less than four years' ordinary road growth.

Hon. Members should also bear in mind that a fleet of about 26,000 lorries—that is, less than the reduction which has taken place in the past couple of years—could carry the total tonnage which is carried by rail. That reflects the dominant position that road haulage already has and the junior position that the railways have. I do not suggest that it is an ideal allocation of traffic. It is certainly the allocation that has already been achieved in Britain.

During research which I conducted at the University of Leicester before I came to the House of Commons, when we did a project in the Transport Development Unit into the allocation patterns in Birmingham and the Black Country, it was not possible to fault so much transport managers' allocation between road and rail. In other words, we could not find many reasons in many cases for a shift back to rail. All that we could find were some effective reasons for suggesting that transport managers had not allocated accurately between their own transport and public carriers.

In other words, although there may be a case for a serious re-examination of the allocation pattern within the road sector, it is very difficult to criticise heartily the allocation pattern between road and rail based upon the research in which I was involved.

Mr. Eric Deakins (Walthamstow, West)

Surely it is a matter of controversy that the overhead costs as between rail and road are very different. It cannot be said that the present pattern of distribution as between the two in terms of transport is ideally suited, unless it can be shown at the same time that the costs of road and rail transport are on equal terms, which I suspect is not true.

Mr. Huckfield

I am willing to agree with my hon. Friend that Britain should have transport on the basis of égalité des péages, which is equality of the two forms of transport in their taxation burden. My hon. Friend knows that most road users are paying more than they get back. British Railways' rate burden and fuel tax burden is not in the same kind of ratio as that of the road user. When my hon. Friend compares the track costs of road and rail, I am sure he will find that the present economic penalties of rail transport would increase if the railways paid their full economic track costs.

I return to the Schedule, because the point of my union is very important in this context. What I fear is that if some of the attitudes expressed by some of my hon. Friends here this afternoon are accepted we shall find this country in relation to the EEC becoming a transport backwater, a transport backwater of lorries of what I can only call "tip and turn" shunting, unless the right hon. Gentleman stresses our case with much more fervour than he has done hitherto.

The next point is in response to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington). What is important is not the driving hours which the European regulations restrict, but the non-driving time. It is quite possible for a European driver to work all hours in connection with his lorry provided he is not driving it. What the Transport and General Workers Union is concerned about is the complete lack of definition of non-driving but on-duty time. We are moving from a very defined situation under the Transport Act, 1968, to a very undefined situation under the European regulations. Far from a big and significant improvement in working standards, as they stand at the moment the European regulations are a drastic reduction in standards, even if they could be enforced.

Another thing my union is concerned about is: if we are to have this sudden reduction to an eight-hour driving day, what would be the effect on productivity deals for four days of 10 hours? There have been some very good agreements negotiated by the Transport and General Workers Union, and they have achieved a significant increase in productivity, and improvement for the drivers; but we could have a drastic curtailment of productivity in this country under the regulations, and we could be very severely hampered.

I hope the Minister will not suggest that we should improve productivity by allowing sleeper cabs in this country, because one thing the Transport and General Workers Union and the lorry drivers do not like and will not tolerate is sleeper cabs. While unions on the Continent may be campaigning for bigger sleeper units in their cabs, unions in this country will not support them at all. I hope that in the negotiations the Minister will certainly stress very firmly indeed that we are not to have the kind of "kipping-up" outside major cities that takes place all across the Continent of Europe.

Mr. Orme

I am following with great interest what my hon. Friend is saying, but does he not see a contradiction in what he is saying? He condemns the lower standards for drivers and for sleeping arrangements in the large lorries, but he has been arguing that we should have larger lorries. There seems to be a contradiction here.

Mr. Huckfield

I am sorry, but my hon. Friend does not quite understand the point.

Mr. Orme

I do.

Mr. Huckfield

We are talking about the longer articulated lorries, not about any enlargement in the size of the prime mover. We are talking of the enlargement or increase in weight of tonnage which a trailer carries. These are quite separate things.

Mr. Orme

I understand that.

Mr. Huckfield

Another point I want to stress is about the tachograph. Whereas the German unions may have their own reasons for suggesting the introduction of the tachograph, the British lorry driver has the tradition of being "a knight of the road". He likes to get down the road and be trusted to do his job. Unless we are careful we shall be faced with a situation where pretty well everything he does from the time he clocks on till he clocks off at night will be measured on the clock.

I wonder whether the Minister would like to have one of these clocks in his car. I do not mean the car driven by his driver. I am asking him whether he would like to have a tachograph in his private car, and I hope he will answer that question, because I am sure that he might give the lorry drivers a little bit more enthusiasm for the tachograph if he would not mind having one of these clocks in his cab.

What I am very much afraid of is that with the sleeper cab and the tachograph we shall reduce our lorry drivers to mere "Euro-battery hens". The European lorry driver watching his tachograph, at the end of his shift, climbs on to his bunk, gets down to kip; the alarm wakes him up; he does his shift; and then he goes back on to his bunk. Is he a knight of the road? The British lorry driver is a knight of the road. Under the regulations that we are talking about he will be a battery hen. I hope the Minister will recognise the strength of feeling there is about this.

I hope the Minister realises, too, that if we are to enter into these agreements the British lorry drivers will get a proper subsistence allowance when they are working on the continent and it will have to be a much better one than the less than two quid they have now. I hope the Minister will say to his friends in the Road Haulage Association, "Let us have a decent allowance for a night down the road."

What I want to say above all is—and I am sure the Minister realises this—that it is no good talking about raising standards unless we can enforce them. I am very sad, in a way, to say this, but we are one of the few countries which is or will be in the Common Market and which can enforce its own regulations. I am sure the Minister knows about the legendary Italian motor bike police who will turn up, wave you down, inspect the wagon, find 36 faults, ask for a fine of 36,000 lira, and, when one asks for a receipt, disappear down the road at an equally rapid rate of knots. That is the kind of enforcement there is in some Continental countries. We talk about harmonisation. Let us talk about the harmonisation of enforcement, too. Otherwise we shall be one of the few countries in the Common Market which will be doing the enforcement of these rules and regulations.

5.15 p.m.

I am sorry to have to detain the Committee, but I have not talked on the Bill very often and I shall probably not get another chance to do so, and it is not often that I get a chance to get information out of the Minister, except at Question time. So I hope he will reply to some of the points I have tried to put to him. I hope it is understood that my speech is not to be construed as advocating or insisting upon heavy goods vehicles, but as seeking to put the 39.3 tons gross in perspective. If we are to have 39.3 tons gross the Minister will have to bear in mind that we cannot shift 39.3 tons gross unless we have the drivers, and that the drivers will have to be paid more for moving bigger loads. I hope, too, that he will bear in mind that British transport policy should ensure that the British transport industry gets a fair share of the European transport cake and not become merely a European transport backwater.

The Minister for Transport Industries (Mr. John Peyton)

If the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) will forgive me, I will not for the moment deal with most of the points he raised, but I should like to start my speech by saying that I have no evil intention in my mind, at any rate at the moment, about sleeper cabs. The hon. Member asked me whether I would want to have a tachograph in my car, and the answer is most certainly I would, although I do not know who on earth would want to read it. If I should want any advice in obsering my activities, perhaps I could have some fairly large scales in my office to measure the volume of paper by which I am constantly inundated.

We have had a very interesting debate. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore), who introduced it with such courtesy, will forgive me if I say that not all that has been said has been all that relevant to the issue about whether we should or should not join the Common Market.

On the question he raised of the European Community's secondary legislation, I think he was making a mountain out of what is already a rather mountainous book. Merely to wave large books about does not carry with it any proof that inside the books there is much of a load of embarrassment for those who take part in the transport industries of our country. Rather the reverse. I think I am entitled to remind him that had the application put forward by the Administration of which he was a member succeeded, we should have had exactly the same problem of accepting the regulations which were already part of Common Market law. Much of the transport policy of the European Community is still in the formation stage and for that reason the sooner we join the better so that we can increase our influence upon transport policy.

One point raised by the right hon. Member for Stepney, which has been raised from time to time and has been a source of misunderstanding, concerns motor car insurance which it is thought will be a great handicap and a source of arid expense to British motorists. The purpose of the directive is simply to obviate the need for the issue of, and the time-consuming frontier checks on, insurance green cards between member States. The directive secures that by requiring a motor insurance policy issued in any member State to provide cover in any other member State against the liabilities which are compulsorily insurable there. In other words, it will considerably aid the motorist and not impede him. There is no reason to expect a heavy increase in premiums. Neither by its terms nor in its effect is any harmonisation of the level of insurance premiums provided.

The question of drivers' hours and tachographs raised by the right hon. Member for Stepney and the hon. Member for Nuneaton must and will be the subject of detailed consultations with the trade unions. Of course I understand the anxieties of drivers about having this device put in the cab. I am always a little doubtful who will read the mass of data which will be available. Nevertheless, I accept that there are anxieties about it with which we must deal. I have on several occasions talked to trade unionists about this, and I shall continue to do so.

I hope very much that trade union leaders who have anxieties on this point, whether or not they suppport in principle our joining Europe, might occasionally take trips to Brussels to make known their views and to influence their European colleagues. This would be a sensible and, from our country's point of view, a desirable tactic. I am sure they will not mind my saying that.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield

The Minister seems to be enunciating a weird and new constitutional doctrine. Is he saying that British trade unions ought now to make their representations to Brussels instead of to him? Is he saying that he is no longer important?

Mr. Peyton

The hon. Gentleman is doing his best to ruin a rather good speech by such an asinine intervention. I am suggesting that it would not be unhelpful if trade union leaders from this country were able to make a habit of fairly close contact with their opposite numbers in Brussels and Europe so that the views which they hold so strongly about what is necessary in transport policy can be shared by their opposite numbers in Europe—no doubt some do.

I come to the vexed question of the Euro-lorry, otherwise known as the killer lorry, the juggernaut and all kinds of pejorative phrases—

Mr. Orme

The European mechanical monster.

Mr. Peyton

The hon. Gentleman can always be relied upon to supply another adjective without difficulty or inhibition.

I went to Brussels not long ago and also to Luxembourg, where I had an agreeable talk with the Chairman of the Council of Ministers when it is sitting on transport matters. In talking to him and to M. Coppé, who is the member of the Commission responsible for transport affairs. I endeavoured to make clear the views of our country on this difficult subject. Within two days of my visit to Brussels there was a meeting of the Council of Ministers at the end of which no decision was made but the Council reached what it called an orientation, an approach—not even a common approach. I have no doubt that there is great mystique here. The Council reached a complicated orientation so that the members could all march together.

On dimensions and weights, the Council reached the point of wanting a 40-ton maximum overall weight and an 11-ton maximum axle loading. The discernible difference between a vehicle of an overall weight of 32 tons, as we have at the moment, and 40 tons is very small. What is important is the axle loading. The French have had the high figure of 13 tons for axle loading, as have some other European countries, whereas we have had 10 tons. The Community orientation has come down to 11 tons.

The right hon. Member for Stepney mentioned the position of the acceding countries and how near is our accession to Europe, and I take the point. I have had recently very close and agreeable conversations with the other three acceding countries whose position is, if anything, stronger than ours on this point. The next process is consultation at ambassadorial and official level and thereafter consultation at ministerial level. That means that the views of the four acceding countries have to be taken into account. People often make the mistake of talking about the Common Market as if it were a great monolith inside which there were no differences of view. That is far from the case.

If I may consider without impertinence the position of Germany, it is, like us, on the outside fringes of the Community. Germany will provide the north-south axis of transport. In the past the Germans have had an axle loading limit of 10 tons. I hope very much that the Germans, and perhaps the Dutch, will come to the view when faced with our detailed arguments that from the point of view of their roads, bridges and old buildings it would be better for them to adhere to the limit which they have had in the past. I very much hope that our views will prevail on a point on which I personally feel very strongly.

We should try to reduce the level as far as we can from the 11 tons which the Community has reached at the moment. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman when he says that many people on the Continent would agree; I think a lot would. I have pointed out that throughout Europe there is a unique and historic legacy of buildings which may be gravely damaged. We must share a common concern, not only in this country but in Europe as well, that such efforts should be protected by every means that we can find.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. J. H. Osborn

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the way he has conducted these discussions, but is it not a fact that we are discussing a regulation that will confront us in the foreseeable future? Can my right hon. Friend give us any idea when it is likely to happen? Obviously it will not be in the next few months.

Mr. Peyton

I am obliged to my hon. Friend for reminding me. Perhaps I should have started by saying that these regulations will not become fully effective until 1980 for international traffic. There is contained in a rather complicated orientation of the Six some complicated stuff about compensating vehicle manufacturers inside the particular countries. It is difficult for me to deal with that matter at length here, but it will be an added source of difficulty in arriving at a complete endorsement of the orientation which the Six have currently arrived at.

Mr. Douglas Jay (Battersea, North)

Would it not be much more sensible if each country decided on the limitation which was most suitable to its own conditions, as has been done hitherto, apparently without difficulty?

Mr. Peyton

Yes, if we wish to inhibit trade.

Mr. Jay

It would not.

Mr. Peyton

The right hon. Gentleman says that it would not inhibit trade, but I venture to suggest, without going into the matter at length, that commonly accepted international standards of vehicles would be an enormous convenience not only to the manufacturers but to their users. From the point of view on enforcing regulations it would also be a great deal simpler.

I was particularly grateful and touched when the right hon. Member for Stepney said that I should have made more speeches. I cannot recollect when that sort of remark was last made to me. I am deeply moved by the right hon. Gentleman's statement. I cannot help feeling that it would be a great convenience if the right hon. Gentleman would use all his great influence to get me a few extra pairs so that I could spend a little more time in Brussels doing exactly what he is asking me to do.

The right hon. Gentleman also asked me about State aids in transport and support for publicly owned industry.

Mr. Shore

Before the right hon. Gentleman moves from the Euro-lorry question, which is of great importance, the important point, which we all want to get clear, is that the Six should know that it would be resented greatly in this country if any attempt were made to issue a regulation or a directive, whatever it may be, in the intervening months before, as the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends hope, this country enters the EEC. We should then be in the position that we were in over fish, with all the complications, absurdities and disadvantages which followed.

Mr. Peyton

I made it clear in Brussels that I was under considerable pressure in the House of Commons on this matter. I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for lending force to that. It is a matter which I have been particularly at pains to make clear to the Six. Any suggestion that there has been an unseemly row or bad temper is certainly unfounded. Nevertheless, I have endeavoured to make the meaning absolutely clear and then to make it clear again.

On the question of State aids in transport, as I think the right hon. Gentleman put it, and particularly the matter of support for our publicly-owned industries, there are some who think that to support publicly-owned industry is to sin against the light. We need not go into that argument. If it is a sin, it is one that is widely committed on the Continent of Europe. There are countries in Europe which do even more than we do to support and prop up the railways. I am advised forcefully on this point that the only changes that would be required of us would be procedural changes of a minor character. I do not want to mislead the Committee, but I am satisfied that that is the case. Should it turn out not to be so, I will make clear to the House that the position was different from that which I had supposed.

The right hon. Gentleman went on to deal with harmonisation. There is always the argument between those who wish to liberalise, as we do, and those who say that harmonisation on tax, regulations and the rest must be a condition precedent to liberalisation. I take the opportunity of saving to the right hon. Gentleman that I regard the unnecessary regulation of transport as a menace. We wish to see transport carrying goods and fulfilling its rôle in trade in as uninhibited a fashion as possible, and not restricted by stupid rules which are terribly difficult to enforce.

I need say no more about drivers' hours and tachographs. I accept that this will be a matter of full consultation. The matter of drivers' hours is complicated. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Nuneaton on the difference between daily driving hours and daily duty hours. That is something which I know is of importance to his union and one of which we shall not lose sight.

My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) kindly referred to the fact that I have the honour—I hasten to say it is only by rotation and not by merit—of being the current president of the European Conference of Ministers of Transport. The Conference is a forum which affords a useful opportunity to Ministers of countries outside the Six to put forward views. It has been useful on the questions of noise, emission, road safety and the rest. It has been a useful forum for those who are not Members of the Six to put forward their views with the Six present and listening.

My hon. and gallant Friend referred to the need, to which I have referred, for the free flow of road vehicles. He went on to deal with the question of quotas. He is right in pointing out that quotas are nothing to do with our entry into Europe. The worst form of quotas are imposed bilaterally and the Commission seeks to substitute multilateral quotas which will be considerably less odious. I have said publicly on a number of occasions that I regard a quota system as an abomination. It would be the desire of this country to get rid of such artificial and unnecessary restrictions.

My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes referred uniquely—

Mr. Orme

He did not stay very long.

Mr. Peyton

My hon. and gallant Friend referred—

Mr. Orme

The hon. and gallant Member made derogatory remarks about this side of the Committee.

Mr. Peyton

We all know that the hon. Member would never allow himself to make a derogatory remark about anyone. When we find the hon. Member following such a strict code of conduct, then my hon. Friends and I will succumb with some surprise.

My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes has fully earned my salute, which I shall still try to get out. My hon. and gallant Friend was unique in referring to the Amendment. Your predecessor in the Chair, Sir Alfred, called an Amendment and my hon. and gallant Friend went so far as to refer to it. Such an historic achievement should not go without salute.

I have already dealt with what was said by the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) on the subject of heavy lorries in answering his right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no lack of concern on the part of either the British Government or, I understand, the Governments of the other acceding countries.

Route restriction, which is not entirely concerned with the Common Market, is, as has been pointed out by hon. Members, complicated and not very easy. We have embarked on a three-to-four year programme of research and examination of this intensely complex problem. Difficult as it may be, if we are to preserve narrow city streets, city centres, small country lanes and villages from violation by vehicles which have no place there, I see no alternative to a sensible policy of restriction on routes. I am sure that industry has the statesmanship and broadmindedness to accept this proposition, too.

The hon. Member for Salford, West referred to the need to protect the environment and suggested that we are ahead of others in Europe. Comparisons are known to be odious, but there is growing concern both here and in Europe about protecting the environment. That is why, in pressing our arguments, I feel we have behind us a great weight of public opinion in all countries.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington) quite rightly touched on the point, which I made just now, about agreed international standards being essential if trade is not to be impeded. My hon. and learned Friend mentioned the compensation code. I am not aware of anything in the European legislation which inhibits our freedom of action, which remains a purely national matter.

There is nothing to be lost by having the widest possible consultation on the important subject of road safety. I hope that increasingly, both here and in Europe, there will be a growing awareness and consciousness of the obscene slaughter which we tolerate as part of our daily routine on the roads and that we shall together manage to stem this horrible tide.

The hon. Member for Nuneaton, after a fascinating autobiographical glimpse, which he followed by the revelation that he was not always in perfect harmony with his colleagues—a situation in which I find myself from time to time—made some interesting comments on this problem and put into perspective the rôle of the heavy vehicle about which, I agree with him, some people have tended to become hysterical. It poses a serious problem, but we should see it in perspective. The hon. Gentleman produced certain figures and made a notable contribution to the debate.

Concerning the 40-ft. container, we are free to use that already. The question is how heavily it is loaded. I am sure it would be unrealistic to suppose that we could stay outside when the Six—perhaps not until they are the Ten—reach agreed standards.

The question posed by the hon. Gentleman about axle loads on railway bridges does not seem particularly appropriate as those bridges were designed for loads of a completely different character.

I do not think I need go into the question of trans-shipment, but I accept that it is part of the problem of route restriction.

The debate has afforded an opportunity to right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Committee to ventilate some of their anxieties about what happens on roads here. It has also washed over into the wider area of the Continent of Europe. Having responsibility for transport arrangements in this country, I hope that our quick entry into Europe will enable us to play a more effective rôle than hitherto in influencing policies which in any case will vastly affect our future.

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Acton)

The usual charm and sometimes wit of the Minister has meant that I have less than 15 minutes in which to sum up this very important debate which encompasses the scope not of one major Bill but of half a dozen.

Article 74 of the Treaty lays down the framework for a common transport policy to which this country will be subject in future, and Article 84 suggests that this will extend not only to rail and road, which we have discussed today, but in future to sea and air traffic.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) touched on the Treaty of Paris, Article 70 of which deals with the European Coal and Steel Community and the pricing of transport relating to the movement of raw materials and finished goods made from steel. The Minister for Transport Industries did not make any comment on that matter. I understand that that provision—there is not time to quote it—will reorient a great deal of the pricing policy of transport for our steel industry. Hon. Members who have been here in the last two or three days will know how important that is, particularly in our peripheral regions of Scotland and Wales.

No mention has been made of the advisory committees which will advise the Commission on its duties concerning transport. OJ25/509 tells us that the Transport Advisory Committee gives advice to the Commissioners; we also read that it is not representative of any Government opinion and that the experts appointed to it sit as individuals and cannot be sacked by the Government because they are not doing the job they were put there to do. Therefore, we shall inevitably be entangled with something of the Brussels bureaucracy.

I come back briefly to the question of lorry weights. With his characteristic charm, the right hon. Gentleman told us rather lamely at the end that he hopes our views will prevail. That is all we can do. I fear that in future Minister after Minister will come, if not between now and January if the Bill goes through then in future years, with much the same lame tale. I fear, however, they will not be able to put such a tale so well as the Minister. That is the least I can say about it. The larger axle weights—another ton on each four or five axles on a lorry—will increase possible vibration, certainly in towns, on sewers, drains and bridges already under stress.

The studies by the Road Research Laboratory so far published have not been decisive. They have not been widely publicised in regard to the difficulties which will ensue for public authorities. The Minister admitted that designated routes—and I half expected him to announce his policy in this debate—involve some severe difficulties, as does the matter of enforcement. Enforcement of rules will be important because of the likely effect on our roads of these Euro-juggernauts.

Therefore, although in his usual way the right hon. Gentleman has amused us and said he would do his best, that is all he can do because, if the Bill goes through, the power will no longer be with Parliament. And I fear that Parliament may have even less power in other respects.

The Minister said that he knew of no way in which the compensation code for our motorways could be affected. I wish to draw attention to regulation 2598/70, page 137, in Part 13 of the European Communities' secondary legislation. We there find an annex to the regulation which sets out quite clearly the EEC's views. It is concerned with the right use of capital and this is part of the idea of the Community, namely, to make sure that it does not spend more than it needs on transport infrastructure. Annex 1 in regard to transport infrastructure uses the phrase: …in so far as such routes and installations are necessary for the circulation and safety of traffic. The annex then says: The road infrastructure consists of the following items: land, road works prior to paving… and also refers to many other matters.

Anybody who has been concerned with the building of motorways will know that the question of a compensation code is a hot potato for any domestic government, and indeed has been a difficult issue for governments of both complexions. If we are to be subject to a compensation code which is less liberal than we in this country might have demanded, then it is perhaps significant that the subject appears to have been taken a little lightly by the Minister today.

Another matter which has been looked at by the Community is that of road pricing, which is referred to on page 279 of the same volume. It has looked at the possibility of introducing under the common transport policy a system of charging for the use of road infrastructure in urban areas and as regards the principles of such a system and the means for putting it into effect. And I am not saying that we should introduce road pricing on entry into the Community, but I believe that position should be looked at. Once again this will take away powers from our Parliament.

My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) spoke of the concern about these matters among people in transport. He mentioned the eight hours worked on the Continent, which does not include non-driving time. He did not, however, mention figures which I have been given by the Transport and General Workers Union showing that drivers' wages on the Continent are significantly lower than those paid here for the same amount of work; moreover their basic hours are rather higher. In this country the basic working week is 40 hours, whereas in Italy it is 46 and in Germany 48 hours. It must be remembered that overtime begins only after the basic time has elapsed. Therefore, the question of the total number of hours worked varies between the system in this country and that on the Continent.

In view of the guillotine, I have not time to discuss hours of duty, return times, tachographs and productivity deals or to explain the complications in labour relations which will be involved.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stepney has already mentioned the fact that lorry drivers are notoriously independent. From what I know of the industry there will be a great deal of difficulty in industrial relations in forcing any particular regulation on the men who work in the industry. If there is difficulty with the trade unions and the lorry drivers, then let the Minister take the responsibility. It is his Government who are taking this leap into Europe, without perhaps looking at some of the implications which go deep into our family life and our traditions and which affect the way in which our industries have grown. I venture to suggest that the transport industry in Europe has developed in a radically different way from our own transport industry. This means that people s attitudes and habits are different. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General, who is here but who has been silent, knows that in the end it is not what the law says that people must do, but what people consent to do. In this respect there will be great difficulty in the future.

The Minister made light of the question of grants to public services. This subject is covered by Regulations 1191/69, 1192/69 and 1107/70. It may well be that, as the Minister said, this will involve only a change of procedure, but the following important phrase is used in the regulations: We terminate all obligations inherent in the concept of the public service". We have gone some way towards that concept already, but this is not to be mandatory. Are we to get rid of all our concepts about public service?

Mr. J. H. Osborn

rose—

Mr. Spearing

The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Osborn) voted for the guillotine and, since I have only three minutes left, I have not time to give way to him. This involves the whole question of who is to judge what is an adequate transport service, since we see in the regulations the phrase: …to ensure the provision of adequate transport services. There is no guarantee, particularly in view of the attitude taken to capital and many other disturbing attitudes, about transport policy as a whole.

I wish to quote from a journal called European Community for the month of January, 1972. In an article headed "Coping with City Traffic", we see this astounding statement: To make public transport more efficient and more attractive to the public, the undertakings which provide services will have to reduce the high deficits on their operations. That statement gives the impression that, in order to make undertakings more attractive, authorities will have to reduce the deficit—presumably by charging high fares. Admittedly this is written not by a Commission but by Dr. Walter Labs, but it puts a question mark on a subject with which the Minister has dealt somewhat lightly.

We have of course dealt with the subject of transport in the Amendment, but I believe that one of the great scandals of the Bill lies in the fact that two Schedules contain the only transport matters in this piece of legislation. It has already been said that in normal circumstances these matters could well amount to two or three major Bills. The Chancellor of the Duchy may not agree with that statement, but these matters will not be dealt with in the same way as if they were part of separate pieces of major legislation which would be given the normal Second Reading, Committee and Report treatment. Because this matter is being dealt with in such an inadequate way, I ask the Committee to vote for the deletion of these Schedules.

Mr. J. H. Osborn

There is one minute left before the guillotine falls. The hon. Gentleman addressed the Committee for 15 minutes and the debate has contained little reference to the subject matter of the Amendments which are before the Committee. If I had had an earlier opportunity to participate in this discussion, I had intended to suggest that Parliament should develop a procedure in which we could debate the various issues more logically when we enter

the Common Market. Unfortunately, we have not been able to debate the Amendments. I had a speech which would have enabled me to discuss them. I very much regret that we are going wide of Amendments on the Order Paper. Is it necessary to have this vote at all?

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 197, Noes 213.

Division No. 251.] AYES [6.0 p.m.
Allen, Scholefield Grant, John D. (Islington, E.) Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis) Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside) Mendelson, John
Ashton, Joe Griffiths, Will (Exchange) Mikardo, Ian
Atkinson, Norman Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Millan, Bruce
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) Hamling, William Miller, Dr. M. S.
Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton) Hardy, Peter Milne, Edward
Baxter, William Harper, Joseph Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Moate, Roger
Bennett, James(Glasgow, Bridgeton) Hattersley, Roy Molloy, William
Bidwell, Sydney Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis Molyneaux, James
Biffen, John Heffer, Eric S. Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Blenkinsop, Arthur Hooson, Emlyn Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Boardman, H. (Leigh) Horam, John Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Booth, Albert Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas Murray, Ronald King
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur Huckfield, Leslie O'Halloran, Michael
Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland) Hughes, Mark (Durham) O'Malley, Brian
Bradley, Tom Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.) Orme, Stanley
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) Hunter, Adam Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury) Hutchison, Michael Clark Palmer, Arthur
Buchan, Norman Janner, Greville Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas Parker, John (Dagenham)
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.) Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Cant, R. B. Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford) Pendry, Tom
Carmichael, Neil Jennings, J. C. (Burton) Pentland, Norman
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield) John, Brynmor Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.) Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.) Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.) Prescott, John
Cohen, Stanley Jones, Barry (Flint, E.) Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Concannon, J. D. Jones, Dan (Burnley) Price, William (Rugby)
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.) Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.) Probert, Arthur
Crawshaw, Richard Kaufman, Gerald Rankin, John
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony Kelley, Richard Reed, D. (Sedgfield)
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard Kerr, Russell Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Cunningham, Dr. J. A.(Whitehaven) Kinnock, Neil Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)
Davidson, Arthur Lamborn, Harry Roderick,Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&R'dnor)
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly) Lamond, James Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Davies, Ifor (Gower) Latham, Arthur Rowlands, Ted
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.) Leadbitter, Ted Sandelson, Neville
Deakins, Eric Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.) Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Dempsey, James Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Doig, Peter Lipton, Marcus Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce Lomas, Kenneth Silverman, Julius
Duffy, A. E. P. Loughlin, Charles Skinner, Dennis
Dunnett, Jack Lyon, Alexander W. (York) Small, William
Eadie, Alex Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.) Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Edelman, Maurice Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Spriggs, Leslie
Edwards, Robert (Bilston) McBride, Neil Stallard, A. W.
Ellis, Tom McCartney, Hugh Stoddart, David (Swindon)
English, Michael McElhone, Frank Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Evans, Fred McGuire, Michael Strang, Gavin
Ewing, Harry Mackenzie, Gregor Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Faulds, Andrew Maclennan, Robert
Fisher,Mrs.Doris(B'ham,Ladywood) McMaster, Stanley Taverne, Dick
Fitch, Alan (Wigan) McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.) Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Maginnis, John E. Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)
Foley, Maurice Mahon, Simon (Bootle) Tomney, Frank
Foot, Michael Marks, Kenneth Torney, Tom
Ford, Ben Marquand, David Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin
Freeson, Reginald Marsden, F. Urwin, T. W.
Gilbert, Dr. John Marshall, Dr. Edmund Varley, Eric G.
Golding, John Marten, Neil Wainwright, Edwin
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C. Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)
Grant, George (Morpeth) Meacher, Michael Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek Whitlock, William TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Watkins, David Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton) Mr, James A. Dunn and
Wellbeloved, James Woof, Robert Mr. Ernest Armstrong
NOES
Adley, Robert Grieve, Percy Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds) Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Grimond, Rt. Hn. J. Normanton, Tom
Atkins, Humphrey Grylls, Michael Nott, John
Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone) Gummer, J. Selwyn Onslow, Cranley
Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley) Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Batsford, Brian Hall, John (Wycombe) Osborn, John
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay) Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport) Harrison, Brian (Maldon) Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Benyon, W. Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Parkinson, Cecil
Berry, Hn. Anthony Hastings, Stephen Percival, Ian
Biggs-Davison, John Havers, Michael Pike, Miss Mervyn
Blaker, Peter Hawkins, Paul Price, David (Eastleigh)
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.) Hayhoe, Barney Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Boscawen, Robert Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward Proudfoot, Wilfred
Bossom, Sir Clive Hicks, Robert Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Bowden, Andrew Hiley, Joseph Quennell, Miss J. M.
Braine, Sir Bernard Hill, James (Southampton, Test) Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Brinton, Sir Tatton Holland, Philip Redmond, Robert
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher Holt, Miss Mary Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Hordern, Peter Rees, Peter (Dover)
Bryan, Sir Paul Hornby, Richard Rees-Davies, W. R.
Burden, F. A. Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate) Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Butler, Adam (Bosworth) Howell, David (Guildford) Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray & Nairn) Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.) Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Carlisle, Mark Hunt, John Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert Iremonger, T. L. Sharples, Sir Richard
Cary, Sir Robert James, David Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Chapman, Sydney Jessel, Toby Shelton, William (Clapham)
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead) Simeons, Charles
Churchill, W. S. Johnston, Russell (Inverness) Sinclair, Sir George
Clark, William (Surrey, E.) Jopling, Michael Soref, Harold
Clegg, Walter Kaberry, Sir Donald Speed, Keith
Cooke, Robert Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine Spence, John
Cooper, A. E. Kimball, Marcus Sproat, Iain
Cormack, Patrick King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) Stainton, Keith
Costain, A. P. Kinsey, J. R. Stanbrook, Ivor
Critchley, Julian Kirk, Peter Steel, David
Crouch, David Kitson, Timothy Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Crowder, F. P.
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Knight, Mrs. Jill Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen.James Lamont, Norman Stokes, John
Dean, Paul Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. Le Merchant, Spencer Tapsell, Peter
Drayson, G. B. Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone) Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Dykes, Hugh Longden, Sir Gilbert Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John Loveridge, John Tebbit, Norman
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) Luce, R. N. Temple, John M.
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) MacArthur, Ian Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.) McCrindle, R. A. Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Emery, Peter Maclean, Sir Fitzroy Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Eyre, Reginald Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Maurice (Farnham) Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy McNair-Wilson, Michael Trew, Peter
Fidler, Michael Mather, Carol Tugendhat, Christopher
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead) Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton) Mawby, Ray Vickers, Dame Joan
Fleteher-Cooke, Charles Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Walters, Dennis
Fortescue, Tim Meyer, Sir Anthony Ward, Dame Irene
Foster, Sir John Mills, Peter (Torrington) Warren, Kenneth
Fox, Marcus Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.) Weatherill, Bernard
Gardner, Edward Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W.) Wiggin, Jerry
Gibson-Watt, David Money, Ernle Wilkinson, John
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.) Monks, Mrs. Connie Winterton, Nicholas
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.) Monro, Hector Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher
Godber, Rt. Hn J. B. Montgomery, Fergus Worsley, Marcus
Goodhew, Victor More, Jasper Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.
Gorst, John Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm. Younger, Hn. George
Gower, Raymond Morrison, Charles
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.) Mudd, David TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Gray, Hamish Murton, Oscar Mr. John Stradling Thomas and
Green, Alan Neave, Airey Mr. Kenneth Clarke

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after Six o'clock, The Chairman proceeded, pursuant to Order [2nd May], to put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Question put, That this Schedule be the fourth Schedule to the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 213, Noes 196.

Division No. 252.] AYES [6.12 p.m.
Adley, Robert Grieve, Percy Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds) Normanton, Tom
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Grimond, Rt. Hn. J. Nott, John
Atkins, Humphrey Grylls, Michael Onslow, Cranley
Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone) Gummer, J. Selwyn Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Balniel, Lord Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley) Osborn, John
Batsford, Brian Hall, John (Wycombe) Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Page, Graham (Crosby)
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay) Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport) Harrison, Brian (Maldon) Parkinson, Cecil
Benyon, W. Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Percival, Ian
Berry, Hn. Anthony Hastings, Stephen Pike, Miss Mervyn
Biggs-Davison, John Havers, Michael Price, David (Eastleigh)
Blaker, Peter Hawkins, Paul Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.) Hayhoe, Barney Proudfoot, Wilfred
Boscawen, Robert Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Bossom, Sir Clive Hicks, Robert Quennell, Miss J. M.
Bowden, Andrew Hiley, Joseph Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Braine, Bernard Hill, James (Southampton, Test) Redmond, Robert
Brinton, Sir Tatton Holland, Philip Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher Holt, Miss Mary Rees, Peter (Dover)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Hordern, Peter Rees-Davies, W. R.
Bryan, Paul Hornby, Richard Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Burden, F. A. Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate) Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Butler, Adam (Bosworth) Howell, David (Guildford) Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&Nairn) Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.) Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Carlisle, Mark Hunt, John Sharples, Sir Richard
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert Iremonger, T. L. Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Cary, Sir Robert James, David Shelton, William (Clapham)
Chapman, Sydney Jessel, Toby Simeons, Charles
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead) Sinclair, Sir George
Churchill, W. S. Johnston, Russell (Inverness) Soref, Harold
Clark, William (Surrey, E.) Jopling, Michael Speed, Keith
Clegg, Walter Kaberry, Sir Donald Spence, John
Cooke, Robert Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine Sproat, Iain
Cooper, A. E. Kimball, Marcus Stainton, Keith
Cormack, Patrick King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) Stanbrook, Ivor
Costain, A. P. Kinsey, J. R. Steel, David
Critchley, Julian Kirk, Peter Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Crouch, David Kitson, Timothy Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Crowder, F. P. Knight, Mrs. Jill Stokes, John
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Lamont, Norman Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen.James Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Tapsell, Peter
Dean, Paul Le Marchant, Spencer Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Drayson, G. B. Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone) Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward Longden, Gilbert Tebbit, Norman
Dykes, Hugh Loveridge, John
Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John Luce, R. N. Temple, John M.
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) MacArthur, Ian Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) McCrindle, R. A. Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.) Maclean, Sir Fitzroy Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Emery, Peter Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham) Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Eyre, Reginald McNair-Wilson, Michael Trew, Peter
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy Mather, Carol Tugendhat, Christopher
Fidler, Michael Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead) Mawby, Ray Vickers, Dame Joan
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton) Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Walters, Dennis
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Meyer, Sir Anthony Ward, Dame Irene
Fortescue, Tim Mills, Peter (Torrington) Warren, Kenneth
Foster, Sir John Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.) Weatherill, Bernard
Fox, Marcus Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W) Wiggin, Jerry
Gardner, Edward Money, Ernle Wilkinson, John
Gibson-Watt, David Monks, Mrs. Connie Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.) Monroe, Hector Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.) Montgomery, Fergus Worsley, Marcus
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B. More, Jasper, Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.
Goodhew, Victor Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm. Younger, Hn. George
Gorst, John Morrison, Charles
Gower, Raymond Mudd, David TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.) Murton, Oscar Mr. John Stradling Thomas and
Gray, Hamish Neave, Airey Mr. Kenneth Clarke
Green, Alan Nicholls, Sir Harmar
NOES
Allen, Scholefield Hamling, William Molloy, William
Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis) Hardy, Peter Molyneaux, James
Ashton, Joe Harper, Joseph Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Atkinson, Norman Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) Hattersley, Roy Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton) Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis Murray, Ronald King
Baxter, William Heffer, Eric S. O'Halloran, Michael
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood Horam, John O'Malley, Brian
Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton) Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas Orme, Stanley
Bidwell Sydney Huckfield, Leslie Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Biffen, John Hughes, Mark (Durham) Palmer, Arthur
Blenkinsop, Arthur Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.) Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Boardman, H. (Leigh) Hunter, Adam Parker, John (Dagenham)
Booth, Albert Hutchison, Michael Clark Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur Janner, Greville Pendry, Tom
Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland) Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas Pentland, Norman
Bradley, Tom Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Brown, Hugh (D. (G'gow, Provan) Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford) Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury) Jennings, J. C. (Burton) Prescott, John
Buchan, Norman John, Brynmor Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.) Price, William (Rugby)
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.) Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.) Probert, Arthur
Cant, R. B. Jones, Barry (Flint, E.) Rankin, John
Carmichael, Neil Jones, Dan (Burnley) Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield) Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.) Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara Kaufman, Gerald Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.) Kelley, Richard Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&R'dnor)
Cohen, Stanley Kerr, Russell Rose, Paul B.
Concannon, J. D. Kinnock, Neil Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.) Lamborn, Harry Rowlands, Ted
Crawshaw, Richard Lamond, James Sandelson, Neville
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony Latham, Arthur Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard Leadbitter, Ted Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven) Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Davidson, Arthur Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.) Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Davies, Ifor (Gower) Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Silverman, Julius
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.) Lipton, Marcus Skinner, Dennis
Deakins, Eric Lomas, Kenneth
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund Loughlin, Charles Small, William
Dempsey, James Lyon, Alexander W. (York) Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Doig, Peter Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.) Spriggs, Leslie
Douglas-Mann, Bruce Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Stallard, A. W.
Duffy, A. E. P. McBride, Neil Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Dunnett, Jack McCartney, Hugh Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Eadie, Alex McElhone, Frank Strang, Gavin
Edelman, Maurice McGuire, Michael Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Mackenzie, Gregor Taverne, Dick
Ellis, Tom Maclennan, Robert Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
English, Michael McMaster, Stanley Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)
Evans, Fred McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.) Tomney, Frank
Ewing, Harry Maginnis, John E. Torney, Tom
Faulds, Andrew Mahon, Simon (Bootle) Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin
Fisher,Mrs. Doris(B'ham,Ladywood) Marks, Kenneth Urwin, T. W.
Fitch, Alan (Wigan) Marquand, David Varley, Eric G.
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Marsden, F. Wainwright, Edwin
Foley, Maurice Marshall, Dr. Edmund Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)
Foot, Michael Marten, Neil Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Ford, Ben Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Freeson, Reginald Meacher, Michael Watkins, David
Gilbert, Dr. John Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert Wellbeloved, James
Golding, John Mendelson, John Whitlock, William
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C. Mikardo, Ian Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Grant, George (Morpeth) Millan, Bruce Woof, Robert
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.) Miller, Dr. M. S.
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside) Milne, Edward TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Griffiths, Will (Exchange) Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen) Mr. James A. Dunn and
Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Moate, Roger Mr. Ernest Armstrong

Schedule 4 accordingly agreed to.

Forward to