asked the Minister of Transport whether he will make a study of the effect of increases in fares on the use of public transport.

There have been a number of general studies of the factors, including fares, that affect the use of public transport. It is for the operators to assess the effects of fare increases in their particular circumstances.

Does the Minister realise that the Government's policy of cutting subsidies and cutting the borrowing powers of the public bus companies means such massive fare increases that many passengers cannot afford to use the bus services? Does he further realise that that leads to a drop in the usage of public transport and a cut in the services—especially in outlying areas? Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the Scottish Bus Group has increased fares in the past year by 34 per cent., which is even worse than the excessive inflation created by the Government?

I deny that there have been massive cuts in revenue support through local authorities, although there have been some economies. I accept that there have been increases in costs for bus operators. But there are other ways to absorb costs, such as by increasing efficiency and productivity and by gearing the service to public demand, as well as handing on fare increases.

Operators should look at those alternative means to deal with the problem and not simply hand on fare increases to the passengers whenever they have large wage settlements or something of that kind.

Is the Minister aware that of the seven passenger transport authorities in Britain, the rate of fare increases in the two Labour-controlled authorities is only half that in the Tory authorities? Is he further aware that passenger journeys per head have increased by 10 per cent. in Labour authorities, whereas they have fallen by 4 per cent. in Tory authorities?

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the classic example of the South Yorkshire authority, which is the main Labour-controlled authority, and advise him to consider the rate levels in that locality. South Yorkshire adopts a policy of making people who do not find it convenient to travel on the buses pay for the bus fares of those who do.

Does the Minister realise that, despite the rate increase in the South Yorkshire county council area, when the question was put to the local people, there was a resounding Labour victory at the local elections? Will he take note of that and stop cutting subsidies when people want a cheaper service?

We have not cut the grant to the South Yorkshire county council. It is being maintained at the level that it would expect as a metropolitan county following an ordinary policy. It was the previous Labour Administration who cut out the South Yorkshire transport supplementary grant, because they also thought that the policies of that county were lunatic.

asked the Minister of Transport when he expects to publish the White Paper on roads.

asked the Minister of Transport when he now plans to publish the White Paper on roads.

I had planned to publish it today, but printing has been held up by an industrial dispute. I shall publish it as soon as possible.

I regret that, once again, an industrial dispute has prevented the publication of an important document. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, when he prints the White Paper, it will reaffirm the Government's commitment to improving the main roads to our main ports, such as Southampton? Will he take note of the recommended Euro-routes recently produced by the EEC?

I cannot comment on individual decisions that will be contained in the White Paper. I confirm the general point made by my hon. Friend, namely, that one of the Government's chief priorities is to encourage routes that have economic benefits, including the routes to the ports.

Will my right hon. Friend urge upon whoever has to be urged the importance of the early publication of the White Paper, especially for areas such as the remoter parts of Devonshire where there is no other form of transport and the roads are in an awful condition?

Yes, I take my hon. Friend's point. I hope that the printing dispute will be settled today. Whatever happens, I can assure him that the White Paper will be published in the week following the Whitsun Recess.

Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the comments of the chairman of the Automobile Association deploring the fact that the Government have increased road tax revenue by £745 million but are cutting back on road expenditure, especially on the maintenance of existing roads?

If the hon. Gentleman studies the Government's plans for and achievements in road spending and compares them with the last two years of the previous Labour Government, he will understand how well we are doing in comparison with that Administration. I cannot say that road expenditure, any more that any other form of expenditure, will be exempt from examination in the present public expenditure climate. We are giving priority to essential economic routes.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that that priority extends to routes from the West Midlands to East and South Coast ports? When considering those routes will he also consider the removal, by bypasses, of the many bottlenecks that exist?

My hon. Friend would expect me, as a West Midlands Member, to be aware of the problems of the West Midlands. That is a topic that will be included within the White Paper. It is true that we place the greatest importance upon improving the environment when considering bypasses. Some of the economic routes, such as the M25, have substantial environmental benefits.

After the White Paper is published, is there any prospect of the House having an opportunity to discuss the road building programme? In my recollection it is years since it was last discussed.

Nothing would give me greater pleasure than a debate on the road building programme. I shall convey the hon. Gentleman's comment to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

Will my right hon. Friend make arrangements, before the publication of the White Paper, for the 10 or so right hon. and hon. Members who are pushing for the M54 to be included in the White Paper to meet himself and the Secretary of State for the Environment? I appreciate that certain side road orders and compulsory purchase orders could be sub judice because of the inquiry that took place last year. However, my colleagues and I would like to push the needs issue to both my right hon. Friends.

I shall give consideration to that. I cannot go any further on the White Paper. I am aware of my hon. Friend's argument on the M54, which he has consistently advanced. We shall give consideration to that and further consideration to the needs issue.

asked the Minister of Transport what capital programmes for London Transport he has approved over the last 12 months.

My right hon. Friend does not approve London Transport's capital investment programmes. These are for the Greater London Council to decide within the total level of resources available to it.

Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that I am rather disappointed with that answer? May I press on him the need for London Transport to do something about the provision of proper collections of fares before it has another fares increase? Is he aware that the hiatus caused by none of the machines taking the necessary coinage and the lack of staff is causing enormous delays? If there is a need for capital expenditure, and if that comes within the responsibility of the Ministry of Transport, could it not be released quickly?

My answer is an explanation of the constitutional position. The Greater London Council is responsible for London Transport. I know that it is considering ways of improving the productivity and efficiency of the London Transport operation. Improved methods of fare collection are one of the factors that it is considering.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that London Transport makes substantial amounts of capital expenditure on the provision of bus shelters throughout my constituency and that these are often obtrusive, unreasonably close to people's front doors and frequently generate hooliganism? In this age of participation and as it is nearly 50 years since the relevant statute was enacted, is it not time that London Transport's arbitrary powers to reduce amenities in the way that I have described were both constrained and curtailed?

I am sure that we all know from our constituency experience that bus stops and bus shelters are rarely popular when sited near houses. I shall draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of London Transport and to those responsible for the use of the powers. The continued existence of the powers will be borne in mind when we consider local authority law, including measures now before the House, and when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment considers further legislative proposals.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary satisfied with the capital approvals that his Department has made and may be making in future for buses and bus design? Is is not a fact that the Treasury pays out considerable sums for buses that do not work and are now being sold off? Will the hon. and learned Gentleman examine these issues as a matter of urgency?

We do not approve capital expenditure when giving new bus grant. We merely consider the eligibility for grant of expenditure that has been incurred by London Transport. We all know that London Transport has had problems with its Fleetline buses, which it is selling after about seven years. It is beginning to acquire a more reliable fleet that is more suitable to its needs.

asked the Minister of Transport what was the total amount of money spent in each of the last five years on traffic education by each county in England and Wales.

I have no expenditure returns which specifically record expenditure on traffic education. I have arranged for as much of the detailed information requested as is available to be printed in the Official Report .

Does the hon. and [earned Gentleman agree that, given the unacceptable level of road deaths and casualties, the Government should take a new initiative and perhaps even consider moving road safety education from the province of local authorities to the police? Is he aware that the experience of hon. Members on both sides of the House is that every time there is a cutback in public expenditure that affects local authorities, the first item to get the axe is road safety training?

The figures that will be printed do not include such matters as expenditure by the police, who already engage themselves quite actively in road safety education in schools. I do not think that it would be right to take the responsibility from local authorities. We all welcome urgings from those such as the hon. Gentleman to local authorities when considering their budgets to bear in mind the heavy cost to the country of road casualties. Road safety education should be an important part of the function of local authorities.

asked the Minister of Transport whether contracts were awarded for all of the following trunk road schemes in the financial year 1979–80 for which provision was made in the Supply Estimates 1979–80: M3 Compton-Bassett widening, A6 Elstow bypass, A17 Heckington bypass, A17 Swineshead bypass, A31 Bere Regis bypass, A40 North-leach bypass, A40 Hillingdon West End road, A40 Gloucester North bypass main works, A49 Brimfield bypass, A66 Bowes bypass, A66 Troutbeck diversion, A303 Furze Hedge improvement, A423 Dorchester bypass, and A17 Leadenham bypass.

Contracts were awarded for none of these schemes in 1979–80.

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman recall that he told the House on 23 January that there would be no underspend in the 1979–80 roads programme and that there would not be the situation which had occurred in previous years, which he had criticised? What has happened to the money contained in the 1979–80 Estimates for these specific programmes? Has there been underspend? Has the money been allocated to other road schemes? Are the Government in considerable difficulty with their roads programme as a result of a failure to carry out the schemes that they included in their roads Estimates?

The programmes that I have mentioned have not been started for a number of reasons, some because of legal challenge, some because of statutory procedures, and a few because of lack of funds. The situation is much more complex than the right hon. Gentleman states. I have taken especial care in answering question No. 27 tabled by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant) to set out the details of the financial background. I regret to say that there has been a slight overspend this year in contrast with previous years. We have breached our cash limit by a small amount. The programmes that are listed in the question that cannot be started could not possibly have been built by the previous Labour Government within their cash limit. Had they gone ahead and built everything for which they had programmed, there would have been either the most massive breach of their cash limits or neglect of vital motorway maintenance, neither of which we are prepared to contemplate.

Does my hon. and learned Friend recognise that the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) has picked his priorities with care? Hon. Members representing constituencies in Hampshire and in Dorset hope that the first and penultimate items will be completed as soon as possible.

All the schemes that the right hon. Gentleman has identified are popular in their localities. None of them has been abandoned. I hope that most of them will be built in the next year or two. The Northleach bypass is the subject of a successful High Court challenge and is having to be considered again.

Why does the Minister, like many other Conservative Members, keep apologising for the spending cuts that the Government have introduced? Why does he not follow the Prime Minister, who, when interviewed a short time ago on the anniversary of her first year in office and asked "What would you do if you had the opportunity to go over your programme today?", replied that she would have cut spending much more harshly and much more quickly? Why does he adopt such a schizophrenic attitude? Surely he should be supporting the public spending cuts that the Prime Minister thinks are wonderful.

The road building programme has to bear its proper share in the cuts. We are seeking to achieve a stable level of programmed expenditure and to achieve that in practice year by year. That was never done by the previous Labour Government. The construction industry was ruined by that Administration using capital cuts as an easy way out whenever they faced a crisis. They then grotesquely underspent the provision, which led to great criticism from the construction industry.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement on the future of the road construction units.

I announced on 6 March, following the Rayner scrutiny of the road construction unit organisation, my policy decision to phase out sub-units by transferring their work to consultants and county councils. I have recently completed discussions with the interested organisations on the detailed policy guidelines for the action study, which will reach decisions on the individual schemes and sub-units. The action study will start very shortly, once I have published the White Paper on roads.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be glad to hear that many hon. Members who are interested in roads support his action. Can he give some idea of the time scale and of the nature of reduction of staff that this will involve—particularly in the sub-units—and of any further plans he may have beyond that?

The aim is to complete the action study in about three months in order to start savings. At the moment, there are about 1,700 people in the RCU sub-units. Therefore, there should be substantial reductions in public sector manpower in that area. I stress that that is in addition to the 18 per cent. reduction within the Department of Transport which I have already announced.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that no matter what he does about the reduction in the construction units, the road conditions in this country are in a terrible plight? What does he intend to do about improving the maintenance of roads that have been allowed to deteriorate under the previous two or three Governments? Does he realise that severe accidents are being caused by motorists seeking to avoid ruts in the road?

I am not sure that there is a great deal of evidence to support the hon. Gentleman's last point, but I agree with him that maintenance must be a priority. There is no case for saying that there must be some shift of resources from investment to maintenance. We take that very seriously and we shall continue to do so.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members think that the RCUs are a total waste of time and money, that they have not justified their existence and should be scrapped in toto?

In that case my hon. Friend will be in sympathy with the kind of proposals that I am bringing forward. My major aim is to give more work to private consultants in this area. They already carry out an enormous amount of export work, and it makes a great deal of sense to give them a home base.

asked the Minister of Transport what steps he has taken to ensure that the priorities of his road programme are acknowledged and, where practical, aided by the European Economic Community.

EEC aid for United Kingdom roads at present comes only from the European regional development fund, which benefits certain local authority schemes. Of course, we seek to ensure that United Kingdom priorities are reflected in such aid.

Will the Minister take up with the European authorities the importance of roads such as the E20 Euro-route that runs from Dun Laog-haire to Holyhead along the North Wales coast to the A55, across England and then to the Continent? There is an increasing volume of traffic on that trunk road. Should not there be a mechanism whereby European aid could be given to improve this road as a matter of urgency? Will the Minister take up this matter with the European authorities?

At present, there is no such mechanism, but there is an interesting proposal for a transport infrastructure fund. We wish to make progress on that proposal, and we are not holding back on the suggestion that some good European routes would justify Community expenditure.

Will my hon. and learned Friend elaborate on the proposals for the EEC transport infrastructure fund? Can he say what criteria will be used for aiding roads in this country, and if and when progress is likely to be made along these lines?

At the moment we have only a Green Paper from the Commission setting out the basis for a possible transport infrastructure fund. We hope that there will be further discussions about this possible transport fund at the next meeting of the Council of Transport Ministers. Certainly my right hon. Friend wishes to have a detailed discussion of the criteria and possible scope of such a fund, because we see potential in it and we should like to forward the idea.

Will the Minister bear in mind that among the people demanding bigger, better and wider roads in this coutry are organisations such as the AA, the RAC, the BRF, the RHA, the Movement for London, Shell, Mobil Texaco and the multi-million pound road haulage industry, and also certain unpaid hacks on both sides of the House who frequently talk out of the sides of their heads?

The hon. Gentleman must have many effigies on his mantle-piece into which he sticks pins from time to time. In discussions about the possible EEC infrastructure funds for transport we are considering not only roads schemes, but possible rail investments. We should also like to see investment in airports and port and ferry facilities in Britain. We see no reason why the various modes of transport should be regarded as mutual enemies, or why their interests should be mutually antagonistic.

Is it not clear that one of the main objectives of the transport infrastructure fund will be to enable grants to be made for roads and other forms of transport, in particular to the South Coast ports, which would be of great benefit to communications between Europe and Britain?

We are anxious to pursue that idea. There seems to be a genuine Community interest in improving international links, particularly our links with ports in continental Europe. At the moment, there is no such aid in existence or on offer. My right hon. Friend will do what he can to forward discussions on the present quotas.

asked the Minister of Transport what is his estimate of the current amount of paid annual vehicle excise duty; and what action he is taking to collect unpaid amounts.

Excluding amounts refunded, the figure for 1979–80 was £1,109 million. In addition, fines, costs and back duty of almost £6 million were collected from evaders. In association with the police I am stepping up my Department's enforcement effort, and a successful campaign against evaders was mounted in Nottinghamshire in February and another has just started in Warwickshire. Other possible ways of reducing evasion are being studied and I am having a special and urgent study carried out in association with Sir Derek Rayner.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his answer. Does he accept that if some of the current estimates of unpaid duty are accurate, the need for increasing this form of duty—which is believed to be under consideration—would be avoided if proper collection were made?

I am not sure to what my hon. Friend refers on his last point. It is certainly the case that the reduction of evasion would make a substantial difference. That is why we have taken this action in, for example, Nottinghamshire, which led to a significant increase in re-licensing and detection not only of evasions but of many other road safety offences.

May I declare an interest in that for 25 years I have been trying to get an answer to this question? Each time the question is asked Ministers give the same reply. Is the Minister aware that evaders pay only a nominal fine and a quarter's arrears, having saved hundreds of pounds in the tax they have dodged? Will the Minister take action to ensure that evaders pay back all the arrears, plus a hefty fine? He may then get somewhere.

I bow to the hon. Gentleman's experience in this matter over the last 25 years. I shall certainly take up his question with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. The Government are taking action against evaders, and if the hon. Member studies the report on the Nottinghamshire case, he will see how effective we have been.

Do traffic wardens have a specified duty to scrutinise tax discs that are displayed on cars? If so, how effective have they been, and what steps are being taken to make them more effective?

Traffic wardens carry out this duty, but in the crackdowns in Nottinghamshire and Warwickshire they were also aided by the police. I should like to pay tribute to the co-operation not only of the chief constables but of the police in those counties for the work that they have done.

There are people outside Nottingham who do not pay their duties. If the Minister is serious about evasion, surely more enforcement officers should be employed. Does not this conflict with the way—by cash limits and otherwise—that the Government are cutting down on the employment of such officers?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not declaring an interest, as a previous questioner was. I think that the hon. Gentleman makes a fairly familiar point, and I understand his constituency point of view. However, I am sure that he will also agree that not only are we collecting more in terms of unpaid duty but we are making the whole Swansea system and the licensing system much more efficient and effective with fewer staff. I think that that is to the good of the general public.

asked the Minister of Transport what studies have been carried out by his Department into the social consequences of rail closures.

None, Sir, but I am aware of the report recently published by the policy studies unit.

Does the Parliamentary Secretary recall that the conclusions of that report are that the fears expressed at public inquiries into rail closures have been well founded and that bus replacements have proved wholly inadequate in community terms? In spite of those conclusions and in spite of what the Minister has told the House, will the Minister nevertheless sanction the new Britsh Rail proposals to close three rail services in West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire and Glasgow?

We have noticed the conclusions of the policy studies unit report. It confirms my right hon. Friend's repeated determination to avoid substantial rail closures. As for the three proposals, which I understand British Railways are formulating, they have not yet reached Ministers. When formulated, they will have to go through the full statutory procedures before my right hon. Friend begins to decide whether to sanction them. In fact, two of the three arise because passenger transport executives—local authorities—have decided to discontinue financial support for the services. The third, I understand, is adversely affected by one of those decisions.

Will the Minister accept that the closure of the Epping-Ongar branch line by London Transport, as is now proposed, would have considerable social consequences for my constituency? As he is now likely to be called into the procedure, will he make sure that, whatever other economic circumstances are taken into account, the social circumstances of my constituents are not overlooked?

Again, of course, I cannot prejudge my right hon. Friend's decision on the Epping-Ongar line, if he is called upon to make one. But this, again, is another problem which arises because of a dispute among the local authorities concerned about which of them should continue the financial support for the present line. The Government have no interest whatever in forwarding widespread closures of rural railway services or any other.

Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the report in The Guardian in which the Minister is said to have given permission for the closure of railway lines, in particular the Penistone to Sheffield link? Is he aware of the consequences that this will have on my constituents in an area which is inadequately supported at present by road services? Is he aware that only a few weeks ago his right hon. Friend condemned a report in The Guardian because of the groundless anxiety that it caused, and now it is here?

I can understand the concern which that report has aroused in Penistone. I also know that ministerial denials of newspaper reports tend, in some people's minds, merely to feed belief in the accuracy of the reports. I am afraid that I can only say that that first report in The Guardian saying that Ministers had approved these proposals was totally and utterly untrue. We have not even received the proposals yet. Before we receive them, there may have to be a public inquiry and a TUCC report on possible hardship, and then my right hon. Friend will have to make a decison. But it is utter fiction to claim that any decision has been made about proposals which have not even reached us.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary accept that there is much concern in the House about the continued reassertion that his right hon. Friend will not sanction substantial closures of public transport lines? Asking how large is "substantial" is like asking "How long is a piece of elastic?" Will the Parliamentary Secretary tell the House clearly, in a totally unambiguous way, whether his right hon. Friend will sanction the closure of the Epping-Ongar line or any other line purely on the ground that a county authority has not been prepared to provide TSG support for that line?

Of course my right hon. Friend cannot give guarantees that there will be no passenger line closures—any more than could the previous Government. One of the proposals that we are most actively considering is for the diversion of a passenger service from Kentish Town to Gospel Oak, that diversion being asked for in order to speed up the process of the electrification on the St. Pancras-Bedford line, which could not otherwise handle the traffic. We cannot rule out closures of that kind. My right hon. Friend has made it quite clear that he is not interested in, and will not countenance, substantial closures of the other passenger services, and misleading newspaper reports are just giving rise to constant groundless alarm.

——

Order. I shall call one more hon. Member from either side of the House on this question and then move on.

Is the Minister aware that there is considerable disquiet, certainly in my constituency and on the Wirral peninsula, about possible closures not of passenger lines but of freight lines, which do not receive the same publicity or have the same consultation procedure? Will he give an assurance that if there is the possibility of closing freight lines, certainly on the Wirral peninsula, consultation will certainly be carried out with representatives of all parties on that peninsula?

I know from practice that British Rail consults very widely when contemplating the closure of freight lines. However, in the case of freight lines there is not the same social problem as there is with rural passenger lines. British Rail is under a commercial remit so far as its freight business is concerned and there is no requirement for ministerial consent for the closure of any freight line. I have to say, therefore, that quite different considerations apply in that case.

Is the Minister aware that one of the three lines mentioned in the report of yesterday is the Kilmacolm line in my constituency? Does he agree that it would be extremely stupid and shortsighted even to give consideration to any such proposal in view of the major development that has taken place on the Clyde with the Clyde link? The social policy studies unit report makes quite clear the long-lasting effect that this would have on rural areas, and that includes my area.

My right hon. Friend will have to consider proposals if they reach him, and Glasgow-Kilmacolm is one of the lines mentioned. However—and this also deals with the other point made by the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth)—the Greater Glasgow PTE is withdrawing support from the Glasgow-Kilmacolm line. We have to consider that, because there are many metropolitan counties which give substantial financial support to their railway services, and it alters the situation when some metropolitan counties decide to withdraw their financial contribution. They are, after all, the locally elected representatives of the people who are likely to be affected by the service changes.

asked the Minister of Transport what was the total number of employees of British Railways at the latest available date; and if he will make a statement.

The figure at 22 March 1980 for the Railways Board as a whole, including the subsidiaries, was 240,534. Of these 179,076 were employed in the railway business, 2,955 fewer than at the beginning of the year.

Will my right hon. Friend reiterate that the efficient use of manpower with resulting productivity is vital to the effective future of British Rail? Does he recollect that at the time of the last wage settlement considerable optimism was expressed by British Rail on the ground that the rail unions were at last prepared at least to discuss certain matters that hitherto they had not been prepared to discuss? Is my right hon. Friend satisfied, particularly regarding the way in which that statement was received by the executive of the National Union of Railwaymen?

I think that it was Sir Peter Parker, the chairman of British Rail, who said that productivity was the rock upon which the future of British Rail was based. We entirely agree and accept that.

I think that we and the public will expect the improvements in productivity that were mentioned at the time of the statement to be realised.

Will not the right hon. Gentleman give credit to the railway-men? Will he not concede that there has been a tremendous improvement in productivity? The reduction in the number of staff shows that quite clearly. Will he take this opportunity to stop the sniping that goes on at British Railways staff, who have an extremely difficult job to do? Will he accept, for example, that many of the delays are caused because many of the jobs involve unsocial hours in many parts of the country and just cannot be filled at the rates of pay being offered?

There is no sniping at British Rail staff. I am glad to pay tribute to the improvements that have taken place over the years. Between 1960 and 1979 there was a 54 per cent. reduction in staff. Those reductions and improvements in productivity have slowed down over the last few years. It should be common ground, at any rate, not just between both sides of the House but in the railway industry, that further improvements in productivity are essential if fares for the travelling public are to be retained within reasonable bounds. I think that that is also something with which the railway industry must concern itself.

Has my right hon. Friend seen the statement of the editor of the major modern railway magazine that the drivers of freight trains are still insisting, through their union, on the adherence to divisions not just pre-nationalisation but pre-grouping, and that the drivers on British railways do fewer hours a week actually driving than those in most countries in Europe?

Anyone who considers our railway system objectively will come to the conclusion that improvements in productivity are necessary and possible. I hope that that message will be taken on board by those working in the railway industry.

Does the Minister realise that if the same drop in numbers were to occur again, no men would be left to work in the railway industry? Will he accept what the chairman of British Rail said when the latest agreement was reached? He said that British Rail had made one of its best advances and that it was sufficient to justify a request to the Government for more favourable treatment and for extra investment. Is he aware that investment is badly needed?

No advance has yet been made. I agree that if such advances are made, they will represent a substantial step forward. However, it is possible to make economies in freight yards, parcels and in administration. The Government and the public will want those goals to be achieved.

asked the Minister of Transport when he expects to receive the inspector's report following the public inquiry into the Blythe Bridge to Uttox eter section of the A564 Stoke to Derby link.

I hope that the inspector will be able to complete his report within the next two months.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that the overwhelming majority of those living in the area are in favour of the proposed route? When he receives the inspector's report, will he reach a quick decision?

As my hon. Friend will appreciate, one cannot prejudge the conclusion of such an inquiry. I realise his anxiety about the decision on the route and about the future of the scheme. We shall reach a decision as quickly as possible when we receive the inspector's report.

asked the Minister of Transport how many public service vehicles are currently licensed by the traffic commissioners.

For the year ending 31 March 1979, the number of PSV licences granted by the traffic commissioners was 75,320.

What annual reduction is expected in the number of licences to be issued by the traffic commissioners when the Transport Bill is enacted?

The legislation will change the system. We shall go over to operators' licences. We shall not licence individual vehicles. The Act will improve the quality of transport services in many parts of the country. It will provide great opportunities to existing and new operators to develop their present services and to introduce better services than are at present found in many areas.

asked the Minister of Transport what reduction in the injury rate on Great Britain's roads occurred between 1970 and the latest available year.

In 1970, 7,499 people were killed on the roads and 93,499 were seriously injured. In 1979, 6,327 people were killed and 80,274 were seriously injured. This was the lowest figure of those killed since 1958 and it is estimated that the number of casualties, per vehicle distance travelled, fell by 30 per cent. between 1970 and 1979.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the House will be very pleased with those figures and with the tremendous increase in safety? Does he not agree that the decline of 30 per cent. in the number of casualties can be ascribed mainly to the development of the motorway network? Will he acknowledge that motorways are our safest roads and that they have an accident rate that is nearly one tenth—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]—certainly, I am reading.

Order. As I have said before, it is foolish to confess in public. The hon. Gentleman may glance at his notes, but he should not admit it.

I apologise Mr. Speaker. I was led astray. Is not my right hon. Friend aware that the accident rate on motorways is about one-tenth of that on urban roads?

I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. There has been a reduction in the accident rate—which I am sure that the House will welcome—during the past decade as a result of better roads. However, that is only one factor. There has also been an improvement in training facilities and that has been of particular help to young people. It has made a major contribution to the reduction in the number of accidents.

Is the Minister aware that those figures could be improved substantially in a number of areas? Is the Minister further aware that we are still waiting for the Government to produce some hard-hitting proposals—that will require some expenditure—to reduce the number of motor cycle accidents? Is he further aware that the glow-worm campaign is supported by such national newspapers as the Sunday Mirror and by many other organisations? Will not that campaign help to prevent accidents to motor cyclists and pedestrian children?

The glow-worm campaign is being organised by RoSPA and by the Sunday Mirror . We welcome the campaign and hope that it will be successful. I know that the hon. Gentleman has expressed concern during the past few months about motor cycle accidents. We shall shortly produce proposals on that subject. I hope that they will relieve the hon. Gentleman's concern. Far more motor cyclists must be trained before they go on the road for the first time.

To what extent does drunken driving contribute to those figures? Does my right hon. Friend intend to introduce new measures to tighten up the restrictions on drunken driving?

Yet, Sir. At present, about one in three of those drivers who are killed are over the limit. That underlines the importance of taking action over drunken driving. The Blennerhassett report—which we are now consulting—lays down the basis for action. Only one aspect is controversial, namely, the random test. The Government are not committed to introducing such tests. I would need a great deal of persuasion to change my mind on that point. I hope that hon. Members from all parties will agree that the other measures contained in the Blennerhassett report should be introduced.

To what extent did the temporary speed restrictions, introduced as a result of fuel problems in 1974, affect the accident rate during the years of enforcement?

In many ways, they hardly affected the accident rate.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement on his recent discussions concerning violence on transport undertakings.

The conference on violence on public transport, which was held on 6 May, was attended by representatives of a wide range of interested organisations. A number of areas were identified for future action, including strengthening of the British Transport police, the setting up of mobile police units, stiffer penalties for offenders, the greater use of close circuit television and two-way radios, and action to ban alcohol on certain trains.

The Government are now giving urgent consideration to all those points.

Although I welcome the conference's decision, particularly that part of it which related to increasing the number and effectiveness of police on London Transport, will the Minister confirm that that can be achieved only by expenditure that is beyond the existing budget of the British Transport police? Bearing in mind that the issue concerns law and order—supposedly exempt from public expenditure cutbacks—will he confirm that a lack of finance will not cause a major hold-up in achieving that objective?

Yes, Sir. We are studying British Rail's proposal for mobile units in respect of the British Transport police. Those units will not be hindered by a lack of resources. I reaffirm that the Government will give priority to law and order.

Will not the Minister concede that the British Transport police have outlived their usefulness? Is not there a good case for arguing that the ordinary police force should be responsible for law and order on public transport? Next time he meets his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will he tell him that many of those who have worked, or who are working in the transport business feel that it is about time that the Home Secretary issued an edict to magistrates to the effect that assaults on public transport staff should result in custodial sentences?

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. The British Transport police are continuing to do a good job in exceptionally difficult circumstances. His proposal will not receive much support. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Home Secretary proposes to increase the maximum prescribed penalty for the offence of assault to £1,000 and six months in gaol. I agree that sentencing policy will affect the problem.

Is the Minister in favour of a separate police force for London Transport? Is it not a fact that there was a delay in dealing with the Neasden disturbances because a report had to be made first to the London Transport police before the Metropolitan Police could be brought in?

I do not think that that is a fair interpretation of the facts. Virtually all the people who were at the conference agreed that the British Transport police had a good role which should not be disturbed.

Will the Minister make it obligatory for all transport operators to have two-way radio installed in all passenger-carrying vehicles? Will he encourage the use of two-way radios at railway stations where communications are so important?

Certainly we are looking at the possibilities of two-way radios. They are already used in some areas and we shall study the case for extending that use.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what is the lowest figure for the Civil Service since the war; and if he will take steps to bring down the service to a figure near to this amount.

The lowest figure for the Civil Service since the war was 643,000. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House on 13 May, we intend to bring the number of civil servants down to about 630,000 over the next four years.

Does my hon. Friend accept that there is concern that the savings will be made on the services to people while the administration still rolls on? Will he make productivity a central part of his policy, although the Civil Service is loth to discuss this matter? If we get the right productivity, we can have the savings and provide good service to the people.

I certainly agree that essential services should not be cut. We want extra productivity and that is what we shall achieve.

Will the Minister tell us why the Prime Minister chose a figure of 630,000 civil servants? Why was it not 620,000 or 640,000 or even 500,000? Will he also tell the House how many of the 75,000 further reductions announced last week had not been announced previously?

The Government chose the figure of 630,000 because, after careful study, we decided that that was appropriate. On the question of the cuts that had already been announced, I was surprised to read the astonishing speech by the hon. Member accusing the Prime Minister of misleading the House. In fact, she made the situation perfectly clear in her statement.

As the number of civil servants has increased since the war, does my hon. Friend believe that the quality of government has improved?

Certainly it has improved in the last 12 months.

Is the Minister aware that it is easy to reduce the number of civil servants if, at the same time, one puts the work out to the private sector? What action is the Minister taking to ensure that, when work is put out to the private sector, there are gains in efficiency and that Ministers who are under pressure to reduce the numbers of civil servants will not just transfer the work and pay more for the disadvantage of getting the work done by the private sector?

I have not noticed that it has been easy to reduce the number of civil servants, but I am grateful to the right hon. Member for telling me. Where functions can be performed more efficiently or economically outside, it may be right to hive them off. I assure the right hon. Member that each case will be considered on its merits.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he is satisfied with the operation of the Pay Research Unit.

Yes, Sir.

Will my hon. Friend consider that answer carefully again? When he looks at the operation of the PRU, will he not consider that it has resulted in high levels of Civil Service salaries, which have increased the difficulties of reaching reasonable pay settlements in the private sector?

Whatever the truth of that statement, it is not the fault of the Pay Research Unit. In this year's pay settlement the Government have applied a strong discipline in the form of a 14 per cent. cash limit. I wish that that had been followed in other sections of the community as well.

Is the Minister aware of the comprehensive press reports this morning that the Government will look again at fair comparison for settling Civil Service pay? Does he remember the denials of previous press leaks of this sort which were subsequently confirmed in the Prime Minister's statement last week? Will he say something today to assure people that those press leaks are not from Government Departments. as they clearly appear to be?

I have not the least idea where those leaks came from. I was not responsible for them so I cannot confirm or deny what the hon. Member has said. I should be very surprised if they came from Government Departments.

Is the Minister aware that the weakness of these comparisons is that in the public service there is no strain, no risk of dismissal, an index-linked pension and honour from the Queen? Compared with the risks of private enterprise, civil servants are very softly bedded.

I take note of my hon. Friend's views, and I understand that a large number of hon. Members share them. A system of comparability has been used to fix Civil Service pay almost since the time of Northcote Trevelyan, and to change it would be quite a major undertaking.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what proposals he has for a Civil Service manpower policy for the rest of this Parliament.

I refer my hon. Friend to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 13 May.

Will my hon. Friend accept that one of the problems is that the suggestion is always made that the only way to reduce Civil Service numbers is to reduce the number of jobs? However, in private enterprise one of the ways of reducing staff numbers is to get more productivity. Many of us feel that there is no indication of more productivity from civil servants.

I assure my hon. Friend that the Government's aim is to cut out unnecessary functions and provide the rest more efficiently. The main emphasis of the recent cuts will be on increased efficiency. That meets my hon. Friend's point.

Will the Minister confirm that the manpower policies of the Civil Service will mean that the rules will be applied very rigorously on the departure of senior civil servants for lush boardroom jobs? Will he confirm that when Mr. John D. Lippett went to GEC, in answer to a question of mine about this the Minister said that Mr. Lippett had no dealings with GEC? Is he aware that that was not the case? Secret information revealed in the new New Statesman demonstrated that a meeting had been held with Sir Arnold Weinstock, Mr. Lippett and others to carve up Rolls-Royce. Will the Minister take this into account in his future manpower policies and stop this shift to lushly-paid jobs?

I am not prepared to comment on individual cases. This whole question is under discussion by the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, and the Government eagerly await its report.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service whether he has yet concluded his review arrangements for independent reviewing of the Government Actuary's computation of the value of pension indexation; and if he will make a statement.

A detailed announcement will be made very shortly. The inquiry will start work as soon as possible after that.

This seems to be taking an unconscionable time. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Conservative Party was committed at the last general election to the proposition that the arrangements for index linkage of public service pensions should be put on a basis which bears comparison with the situation in the private sector?

I do not think that it is right for me to comment on what the inquiry may find. I can assure my hon. Friend that his tabling of this question has activated the Government's mind with great rapidity, and I hope that he will have a happy Whitsun when he sees what happens.

Is my hon. Frend aware that, with the recent increase in inflation, the amount of capital needed to buy a top civil servant's pension, even with early retirement, would be almost £500,000? Does not that stick in the gullets of most people?

I do not recognise that figure, but that is the sort of evidence that the inquiry will wish to consider. I hope that my hon. Friend will submit evidence to it.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service whether he will meet representatives of Civil Service trade unions to discuss staffing levels in the Civil Service.

I have met representatives of the Civil Service trade unions twice in the last few weeks to discuss staffing levels. I am very willing to meet them again if they wish it.

What is the sense in deliberately creating more unemployment by making thousands of civil servants redundant, then perhaps having to employ an extra 7,000 civil servants in order to deal with the extra people out of work?

There is no intention of making thousands of civil servants redundant. I have already made clear that we believe that the changes in the Civil Service can be achieved with a minimum of compulsory redundancies. Therefore, the hon. Member's premise is wholly wrong.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is inconsistent to try to cut staff numbers in the Civil Service while at the same time trying to attract more civil servants by applying the principle of comparability?

I note my hon. Friend's views. I have nothing to add to my earlier answer about comparability. However, I assure my hon. Friend that we are determined to achieve a smaller Civil Service so that the country as a whole—and I believe that the majority of my hon. Friends share the aspiration—feels that it is getting value for money for the work that the Civil Service does.

When the Minister next meets Civil Service union leaders will he try to find out why in 1980 it takes four to five weeks for the assistant to the assistant to the assistant of a Minister's private secretary to forward a letter, when, 30 or 40 years ago, it took only three to four days?

I shall make a point of mentioning that at my next meeting with the Civil Service unions. However, I feel that some union leaders may say that they are over-burdened by the hon. Gentleman's written questions.

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short business statement.

The Upholstered Furniture (Safety) Regulations, originally announced for consideration on Tuesday, will now be taken at the end on Thursday.

When does the right hon. Gentleman hope to make a statement on——

Order. Business questions must relate to the statement that was made, which concerns upholstered furniture—I believe.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Bearing in mind the date of the recess, when shall we be told when the Government intend to apply sanctions against Iran and have an opportunity for debate?

That is not a point of order for me.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it possible to put a question to the Leader of the House on his short business statement?

Yes, on upholstered furniture.

Will the business be limited to one and half hours, or, in view of the intense public interest, will the time be extended?

As I indicated to the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot), I was sympathetic to the suggestion that we should have extra time. I suggested that the matter should be discussed through the usual channels. It has been agreed that there should be an extra half hour for the debate on upholstered furniture. I hope that that will satisfy my hon. Friend.

I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely, the unlawful action of the Home Secretary in accommodating prisoners in association rooms, classrooms, storerooms, visiting rooms, a library, offices, a dormitory floor, hospital annexes and a corridor. This matter is specific, in that the Home Secretary is illegally accommodating 150 prisoners at any one time in accommodation that has not been properly certified for sleeping. In doing so, the right hon. Gentleman is breaching the terms of the Prison Act 1952 and the 1964 prison rules. That is happening today at Oxford prison, at two female remand centres, Low Newton and Risley, East Sutton Park borstal and at six detention centres, where prisoners are having to sleep in association rooms, classrooms, on corridor floors and in a library.

The matter is important. The Government, more than anyone should adhere to the law, especially when they parade themselves as a Government of law and order. The Prime Minister today said that the Government should set an example to others, but on this occasion the Home Secretary is breaking the law when he more than anyone should comply with it. There can be no excuse for breaking the law. In this instance the right hon. Gentleman is acting in a cavalier manner that can only bring the law into disrepute and disrespect. It makes a mockery of the exhortations of the Home Secretary and his Ministers to others to comply with the law. It is serious when anyone breaks the law. It is profoundly worrying when the Government do so.

The matter is urgent. The practice is going on now. It is a direct and inevitable consequence of overcrowding in our prisons. In addition, 150 prisoners are accommodated in police cells for up to two days because of lack of accommodation in our prisons. That state of affairs will continue unless and until the Home Secretary has the courage to embark on urgent and radical action to reduce the massive overcrowding in our prison system.

A decent and responsible Home Secretary would have explained to the House the unusual and peculiar circumstances in which he finds himself. If he had a proper sense of responsibility, he might even resign. He should at least have the courtesy to explain to the House and the country why he is breaking the law and when the Tory lawbreakers will comply with it.

The hon. Gentleman gave me notice before noon today that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,

the unlawful action of the Home Secretary in accommodating prisoners in association rooms, classrooms, storerooms, visiting rooms, a library, offices, a dormitory floor, hospital annexes and a corridor". The hon. Gentleman made a serious speech and the House will have listened with concern to what he had to say.

As the House knows, it is not for me to decide whether this matter shall be debated. I have to decide only whether a debate shall take priority over our business today or tomorrow.

I regret that, having carefully considered the hon. Gentleman's representations, I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the holding of a Referendum on whether the United Kingdom should continue to be a member of the European Economic Community. Next month we have the fifth anniversary of the 1975 referendum, when 42 per cent. of the United Kingdom electorate voted in favour of continued membership of the Common Market. Next month we shall also have the first anniversary of direct elections to the European Parliament, when only 32 per cent. of the United Kingdom electorate bothered to vote.

Pro-Marketeers will argue that in 1975 the majority voted to stay in the EEC. However, there are recent indications of a substantial switch in public opinion. Last month the Sunday Telegraph published a Gallup poll which indicated that 59 per cent. of the electorate would now vote to come out of the Common Market and only 27 per cent. would vote to stay in. The majority, including many who voted "Yes" in the 1975 referendum, realise what many of us have said for many years—that our membership of the Common Market has been an unmitigated disaster. It has brought escalating prices—especially of food—destroyed thousands of jobs, had a crippling effect on our balance of payments and been ruinous for our economy.

In January 1973, when we joined the Common Market, inflation stood at 8 per cent. It is now 21.8 per cent, which is worse than for any other Common Market country. In 1973, unemployment on average was just over half a million. It is now more than 1½ million, with the worst figure for May since the war. In 1972, the year before entry, our balance of payments deficit with the Common Market was £647 million. In 1973, the first year of membership, it had more than doubled, to £1,399 million. Last year it had doubled again, to £2,735 million.

In 1973, our net contribution to the Common Market budget was £102 million. By last year it had risen to £959 million.

The Government's White Paper on public expenditure indicates that unless there is a radical change it will increase to £1,550 million by 1984. It is interesting to note that the only year in which there was a net gain out of the Common Market contribution was 1975, the year of the referendum, when it appears that the British public were lured by a £56 million net gain in our Common Market contribution.

I accept that the Common Market cannot be blamed for all our economic ills. Nevertheless, our membership has made things significantly worse instead of better. The common agricultural policy, for example, has contributed largely to our budget deficit and also to inflation through increased food prices. Yet, paradoxically, millions of tons of food are going to waste.

The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was coy about giving me up-to-date figures on the total amount and value of food in storage. However, with the help of the Library, I managed to get figures for October 1979. These show 353,000 tons of skimmed milk powder, at an estimated value of £240 million; 1.3 million tons of wheat, at an estimated value of £110 million; 54,000 tons of barley, at an estimated value of £5 million; 49,000 tons of beef, at an estimated value of £120 million; and 244,000 tons of butter, at an estimated value of £930 million. As hon. Members will know, a few weeks ago, there was a Common Market deal to sell 20,000 tons of surplus butter to the Russians at the knock-own price of 25p a pound—less than one-third of the price that the British housewife has to pay in the shops. It also appears that the British housewife may be expected to pay some of the price for any reduction in our Common Market contribution if a new deal is negotiated on farm prices leading to higher prices for food in the shops.

What is required is not simply a reform of the common agricultural policy or a reduction in our budgetary contribution. The fundamental problem is the Treaty of Rome—a charter for making the rich richer and the poor poorer. The freedom of movement of investment inherent in the Treaty of Rome has meant an exit of investment and jobs from this country. If that is thought to be Socialist rhetoric, hon. Members should study the letter, dated 30 April, from the director-general of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, sent to all hon. Members, stating: We feel that the ' Golden Triangle ' countries have taken a disproportionately large share of what investment has been available in recent years. There has been an exodus of investment from this country, especially by multinational companies with a European connection. One thinks, in Scotland, of Massey-Ferguson. There was also yesterday's news from Talbot of another 1,300 threatened redundancies at Linwood. Whole industries have been crippled and jobs destroyed because membership of the Common Market reduces our ability to stop import penetration of the United Kingdom market. I can point to damage in my constituency to industries such as chipboard, foundries and paper. A few weeks ago I visited a paper mill that is due to close in the town of Denny. Both management and trade unions put forcefully to me the point that our membership of the Common Market meant a reduction in our share of the United Kingdom market—let alone the European market—rather than an improvement. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why"].

The pulp and paper industry faces difficulties exacerbated by our Common Market membership. I hope that pro-Marketeers such as the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) will reflect on the troubles facing the pulp mill in Corpach, where 450 jobs are at stake, as well as more than 1,000 jobs elsewhere in Scotland—including some in my constituency—in such occupations as forestry.

These events make a mockery of the slogans used during the 1975 referendum by pro-Market fanatics, that membership of the Common Market would mean jobs for the boys. What jobs? What boys? Perhaps the slogans refer to the 410 Euro-MPs and such people as Lord Soames, who became a vice-president of the Commission, and Roy Jenkins, the present president of the Commission and supposed head of that bureaucracy with an annual salary of more than £85,000. He has done quite well out of Common Market membership. It is clear, however, that the vast majority of people now realise that they were conned by the expensive and massive propaganda of the 1975 campaign.

It is significant that the pro-Market side, according to its own account, spent more than £1,500,000—an amount more than 10 times the amount spent by the anti-Market side. I propose in my Bill that there shall be maximum expenditure, similar to the limits placed on candidates at a general election, making for a fairer campaign and a fairer result.

I submit, finally, that my Bill is timely. There is to be another Common Market summit in Venice next month, when, for the third time, the Prime Minister will try to obtain a satisfactory reduction in our Common Market contribution. If last week's meeting in Naples is anything to go by, it looks as though she will be heading for a third failure. The right hon. Lady is on record as saying that she is in favour of referendums. I suggest that after the summit the people of this country should have their say and be given the chance to undo the mistake made in 1975.

To leave the Common Market would not mean shrinking into inward, narrow-minded nationalism. I am not a nationalist. I have never believed that co-operation between people should stop at Berwick-upon-Tweed, the English Channel, the Berlin Wall, or any other barrier, whether man-made or natural, but the Common Market has created a barrier round itself. It is a protectionist bloc consisting of only a minority of the peoples of Europe. The whole ethos of the club is not international co-operation but ruthless, cut-throat competition, where the rich members get richer and the poor members get poorer.

A referendum now would reverse the 1975 result and provide an opportunity for pursuing better domestic policies in industry, agriculture and fisheries and throughout the whole economy, as well as building valuable political and economic links on a wider international basis throughout the world.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Inverness (Johnston) has indicated to me that he wishes to oppose the motion.

I ask the House to reject the application of the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) to introduce the Bill, on two grounds. The hon. Gentleman suggests that a referendum is in some way a noble, democratic device, introduced for high idealistic reasons by individuals who, above all else—whatever their personal views—wish to ensure that the public will is known and implemented. While conceding that there are a few hon. Members—I think especially of the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart)—who regard referendums as good things, I do not think that this is felt to be the case either in the House or in the country. Both in the House and in the country there is an acceptance of the value of representative government, whereby people study issues carefully and decide upon them, knowing that in due course they will be accountable at the polls. As a passionate advocate of proportional representation, I argue that the basis of this representative government is distorted, but this has nothing to do with the acceptance of the value of representative government per se.

Referendums are advocated only by those who believe that they would win a referendum at a particular time. [ Interruption .] I wish that someone would try to silence Labour Members below the Gangway.

The hon. Gentleman is trying to gag us.

For example, if we take issues of life and death, such as capital punishment and abortion, it is surely significant that those who advocate the return of capital punishment advocate a referendum, while those who are opposed to abortion do not. That is an indication of the fact that those who argue for the Bill, irrespective of the validity of the arguments, are interested only in ensuring that a reflection of public opinion is achieved at a time when they feel that their view holds water.

Secondly, if the Bill were accepted, it would be taken as a clear sign from the House that it wished to turn its back on the European Community. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] When one considers the history of Europe in this century alone and the particularly dangerous instability of the wider world at the moment and the limited nature of our disagreements—I stress that—against the deep gulfs—[ Interruption .]

Order. Hon. Members must be fair to the hon. Member for Inverness and allow him to make his case without constant interruptions.

It would appear that those who are opposed to the Community feel that the noise of their interjections lends validity to their arguments. I do not believe that that is so.

The area of disagreement that we have entered into in the Community is limited compared with the deep gulfs in the world at large, which have been drawn to our attention by the Brandt Commission. Therefore, if we turned our back on the Community, it would be a profoundly negative act.

We have never really tried to make the Community work.

It will not work.

We can achieve nothing if we do not do it in a spirit of commitment.

I reject flatly the contention of the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire that everything that is wrong in this country is the fault of the Community.

My hon. Friend did not say that.

The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire referred to the situation facing a pulp mill in my constituency. That has nothing to do with the Community. It is a good example of the fact that many hon. Members and others blame what is wrong on someone else.

All members of the Community face similar problems internally, while externally the threat to world peace is greater than at any time since 1939. Certainly there are differences among our nine countries, but I do not believe that their resolution will be achieved by rhetoric and nationalism. They will be achieved only by politics, fair argument and patience.

My late fellow-countryman, Dan McGarvey, of the boilermakers' union, was a good man in many ways, but I have never forgotten that he once said that if he had to choose between the well-being of Scottish boilermakers and the well-being of French peasants, he knew which side he would be on. That was a profoundly erroneous analysis. Whatever we do in this country, we have a common interest in achieving, throughout this Continent and the world, the fair resolution of disagreements.

I believe that in the European Community we have an opportunity to do that and we should be foolish in the extreme to turn our back on it.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business ):—

The House divided : Ayes 125, Noes 219.

Question accordingly negatived.