The fact that it was honest did not make it any more satisfactory. I was not implying that it was anything but honest; it is just that I thought that the hon. Lady was uncharacteristically pessimistic about future Community projects.

I approach this debate in the hope that our deliberations will enable the Secretary of State to gauge the views of hon. Members before his meeting with other EC transport Ministers on 20 December. The Opposition take no great exception to the proposals outlined in this measure. The expenditure that is proposed, at least for the Community, is on a comparatively small scale and there could even be marginal benefits for the United Kingdom resulting from it. Any influence that the Minister can exert to expand those benefits for this country will be heartily welcome.

At the same 20 December meeting the Council of Transport Ministers will, I understand, discuss Commission proposals for the liberalisation of road haulage. The Commission's long-standing objective, the House will be aware, has been to carry forward that process of liberalisation, and that position will doubtless be supported by the British Government. To be fair—I trust that hon. Members will agree that I like to be fair in these matters — that attitude, though I may not have agreed with it, has been adopted by successive British Governments, Labour and Conservative, though without this House giving that policy a great deal of scrutiny.

I shall return to the question of the general drift of Community policy on the road-rail balance later in my remarks. First, dealing with the proposals before us, I have a few tentative recommendations to make to the Minister about the way in which their application could be improved.

Last year the Community was able to spend 10 million ECU—a dreadful word that does not mean anything to the Majority of people—or about £5 million on three projects: contributing to the construction of marshalling facilities, to road projects in Greece, and to a feasibility study into means of financing the Channel tunnel. Now the Commission is proposing expenditure of 15 million ECU in respect of the 1983 budget, although regrettably—the hon. Member for Southend, East made this point—no United Kingdom projects are included in the proposals. Why do projects in other countries seem to command greater priority than projects in the United Kingdom?

Without wishing to open old wounds, I must say that, as Britain is the greatest net contributor to the EC, it is not unreasonable to expect that this country might be included in some of the projects. That has not been the case in 1983. Meanwhile, in 1984 greater expenditure, of 60 million ECU, is envisaged for a pool of projects which included things like the development of north-south road ard rail links in Greece, the European north-west, south-east transit axis—that scheme being dependent, I understand, on the conclusion of negotiations with Austria— and a number of road, rail and waterway projects elsewhere in the Community.

From the British point of view, those could involve expenditure on the M25 London orbital motorway or improving rail access to Harwich and its port installations. But, as we heard from the Minister, there are no guarantees that the expenditure will be made in the United Kingdom. One reason for that may be the approach that the Government adopt. While the Minister properly says that we look at short-term rolling programmes for such projects, it is surely not unreasonable for the Opposition to ask that the Government — being the committed member of the EC that they are—should pursue sonic long-term projects on transport infrastructure and have a debate with our fellow members of the Community about the long-term desirability of some projects, including their long-term financing, from the allocation of expenditure on transport infrastructure within the EC.

I shall refer to the Commission's policy paper of earlier this year on transport infrastructure investment, Command (83) 58 final, in which the Commission announced that it would be in accord with the recommendation of the European Parliament and the Commission's policy if the use of criteria for the application of Community instruments gave emphasis to proposals designed to transfer traffic from road to rail where this is economically justified. In the short term that surely argues in favour of the Government staking a claim for expenditure on improving rail access to the port of Harwich. If the hon. Lady replies, will she tell the House whether the Government intend to pursue that project at the meeting next week?

The Government must not neglect the longer-term potential for Community investment in Britain's railways. The Commission, through Mr. Frohnmeyer, recently identified three areas in which it sees an important future role for railways. On 26 September, Mr. Frohnmeyer of the EC transport commission spoke at a transport 2000 conference on "The future of Community railways" in London. He set out the three areas. They are, first, social and regional passenger mass traffic in densely populated areas, secondly, inter-city passenger traffic between major centres up to distances of about 300 to 400 miles, and, thirdly, bulk goods traffic on long-distance international routes.

The first two areas have an obvious application to the United Kingdom, and the House deserves an assurance from the hon. Lady that she and her Department will consider that in any future discussions. It is possible that Community investment could be justified in Britain with regard to rail electrification and to infrastructure renewal in our larger conurbations. Both are desperately needed but are unlikely to be achieved under the present financial constraints imposed upon British Rail. As the hon. Lady made clear, in the light of the budget crisis now gripping the Community, it is admittedly difficult to peer too far into the future. I understand that it is unlikely that any agreement will be reached on a transport infrastructure programme going beyond the next two years. The reasons for that are apparent and understandable.

Nevertheless, if the Community has a future beyond the next two years, it is vital that Britain should derive some tangible benefit from membership. A practical contribution to railway development would be one. It would be helpful if the Government were to cease their sleight of hand with the United Kingdom's budgetary rebates. Where rebates are allocated to transport, they should go to transport instead of being swallowed in the Treasury's maw in a bookkeeping exercise.