Lords Sitting of 11 December 1989

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Bradford.

Euro-Arab Conference
Lord Mayhew Lord Mayhew asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs proposes to join the foreign ministers of the European Community and the Arab League at the Euro-Arab conference in Paris on 21st December.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Brabazon of Tara): Yes, my Lords.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that satisfactory Answer. Is he aware that it will give considerable reassurance to the other Community foreign ministers?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful for that.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, will Her Majesty's Government press their EC partners not to grant economic or political assistance to Syria, Libya or any Arab country which supports terrorist organisations?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, certainly. I hope that that item will not appear on the agenda of the meeting. We do not normally have bilateral relations with either of the two countries to which the noble Lord has referred. However, sometimes we meet them at international conferences such as this.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House what will be on the agenda at the meeting? Will it be broadly political or will trade questions be tabled? If so, what will be the nature of the subject of trade that will be discussed?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I cannot give a full answer to the noble Lord's question because at this stage there is no fixed agenda for the meeting. However, there will be discussion of EC and Arab economic co-operation, reform of the dialogues institutions and political issues. I understand that as yet there is no fixed agenda.

Drinking and Driving
2.38 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What further proposals they have to deal with drink-driving.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, we launched the pre-Christmas phase of our "Drinking and Driving Wrecks Lives" campaign on 6th December. This has the warm support of police, voluntary organisations and the drinks industry. It forms part of our year-round programme of events and measures to strengthen the trend against drinking and driving and to cut the quite unacceptable deaths and injuries that it causes.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the greatest deterrent to drink-driving is the fear of getting caught? In those circumstances, does he agree that the only measure which will substantially reduce the appalling number of deaths caused by drink-driving —there are 1,000 per year—is the institution of random breath testing at roadside checkpoints? In view of the outstanding success that this has had in a number of other countries, why are not the Government adopting it or at least looking at it?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, calls for random breath testing reflect the welcome hardening of society's attitude towards the drinking driver. The police have asked for unfettered discretion to administer tests and a recent consultation exercise showed wide support for a change in the law. The Home Secretary is now considering how best to take that forward.
Lord Strathcarron: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that of the 5,000 fatal road deaths per year only one-quarter are drink related and of those, one-third are drunken pedestrians? Does he further agree that more accidents are caused by people who cannot see properly than by drink-driving? I should like to know what the Government intend to do about that.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I confirm that drinking and driving resulted in approximately 900 deaths last year. It is the biggest single cause of road accident casualties. My noble friend has put forward an interesting hypothesis which I shall bear in mind.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, has the Minister seen a report that the current flu virus has a much worse effect on one's driving than does drink? Will the Minister introduce a test to discover whether people have flu?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am afraid that I have not seen that report.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the Minister agree that we are too easy with people who drink and drive and who are potential killers? Is it not a fact that people who drink and drive, who are breath tested and who then have further blood or urine tests, may well be allowed to continue to drive on the roads for weeks and months after detection because of the time taken to bring them to court? Have we not reached the stage when someone caught with excess alcohol in his blood should be banned from driving on the spot?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the Government welcome the recent announcement by the Magistrates' Association that it intends to produce revised guidelines on sentencing road traffic offenders. Of course, it is for the courts alone to decide on the appropriate sentence within the maximum penalities set by Parliament.
On the last point raised by the noble Lord, when somebody is apprehended and breath tested and it is still alleged that he is driving having consumed drink, it is for the court to prove that he has done so.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that there is a certain injustice about the present testing for drink-driving because it appears that people can absorb different amounts of alcohol at different rates and thus register at different levels? For example, women register, having absorbed less alcohol. Does not the Minister agree that one way in which to deal with this matter would be to test whether or not people are really drunk and that that would be the best solution?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the present limit is the level at which, for most drivers, the chance of being involved in an accident starts to rise sharply. Therefore, I believe that priority must continue to be given to enforcing the present limit.
Lord Monson: My Lords, in order to get matters into proportion, does the noble Viscount agree that Britain has one of the lowest road fatality rates in the entire world, lower indeed than 50 years ago despite there being almost 20 times as many vehicles on the roads? Secondly, does he agree that even if every accident said to be drink related was actually caused by drink, which is certainly not the case, it still remains true that at least 82 per cent. of accidents are caused by sober drivers—over-tired, impatient or careless but, nevertheless, sober drivers? Let us not emulate the Ayatollahs.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, we should all be grateful that there are so many sober drivers on the roads. However, I believe it is unwise not to pursue those who drive and drink and unwise not to try to discourage them. That is what the campaign launched on 6th December is intended to do.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, is it not a fact that in a press notice issued by the Department of Transport as recently as 6th November, it was clearly stated that there are no less than 120,000 drink-driving convictions each year? As he referred to investigations made by the Home Secretary, will the Home Secretary also take a very careful look, if random breath testing is to be introduced (which I support), to ensure that there will be very sound guidelines for the police to follow, that there will be reporting of the progress of random breath testing and monitoring so that a fuller report can be given?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the noble Lord may be interested to know that there were 440,000 roadside breath tests in 1988 —11 per cent. more than in 1987. The Home Secretary will take into
1122
account all the noble Lord's suggestions when considering what to do next about random breath testing.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, in enforcing the present law, such as my noble friend emphasised, does he not agree that there are already three specific provisions within the road traffic Acts which allow police to stop suspect motorists? Do not the execution of those powers provide an adequacy of enforcement?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, my noble friend is correct. A police officer may stop a motorist and ask for a breath test to be carried out following an accident and following a moving traffic offence. It is also lawful for a police officer to slop any car if he suspects that the driver may have been drinking.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, can the noble Viscount say how many pedestrians under the influence of drink are killed by motor cars because they are walking about drunk? Should not the Government give a warning to people at Christmas-time that they should not wander around drunk and be a hazard to drivers?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not have the figures for which the noble Lord is asking. However, I believe that his words of wisdom, especially at this time of the year, are very apt.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that one of the great strengths of my suggestion of a breath test made at a roadside checkpoint is its fairness? There is no question of bias, harassment or anything of that nature associated with it. Will the Government take into consideration the fact —and I think the Minister might have mentioned this —that a road transport users' opinion poll revealed that 81 per cent. of people now support the kind of breath test which is being proposed?
Viscount Ullswater: Yes, my Lords, the Government will take into consideration everything which the noble Lord has said. I should also mention that there are roadside surveys carried out every year by the road research laboratory although it does not have the force of the police.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, before we go overboard in favour of random testing, would it not be a more effective use of manpower to monitor careless driving which is a moving traffic offence? Would that not be more liable to catch the drunken or drinking driver than a random test on the principle that the aimed shot is slightly more effective than shooting into the ground?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, my noble and learned friend has made an extremely valuable point. Of course, the police investigate cases of careless driving and one of the measures which they are obliged to take when they find an accident is to give the drivers involved a breath test.

The Guildford Four: Law on Confessions
2.49 p.m
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will now bring the law of England and Wales regarding confessions into line with Scottish law, in the light of the miscarriage of justice concerning the Guildford Four.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the Government will consider whether any changes of law or practice need to be made in the light of the recommendations of the judicial inquiry presided over by Sir John May.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that reply, is he aware that as a Member of the other place, I was involved in the Timothy Evans case? He was hanged for confessing to a crime which he did not commit and he was later pardoned. Can the Minister say whether or not Scottish lawyers will be involved in the examination being carried out by the Government? Will those who are examining make sure that they contact and listen to the views of the lawyers in Scotland?
Viscount Ullswater: Yes, my Lords. Under English common law and since 1984 under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act of that year, before a confession can be heard in evidence the prosecution has to satisfy a court that it has been obtained without oppression and not in circumstances which would otherwise render it unreliable. This was on a recommendation of the Criminal Law Revision Committee, which, at the time it reported, had the Scottish law available to examine. I repeat that the inquiry has been framed wide enough to allow it to consider any questions of law or fact arising from the investigation, trial or conviction.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the exercise of the power of the Home Secretary to refer to the Court of Appeal for a re-hearing under Section 17 of the 1968 Act is not wholly satisfactory? Does the Minister agree that, without a full transcript of the proceedings at the trial, the powers of the Court of Appeal are unduly and unfairly limited? Finally, does he further agree that convictions, particularly for murder, uncorroborated but contested, are wholly unsafe?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I believe that the matters raised by my noble friend will be subject to very careful scrutiny by Sir John May. In those circumstances it would not be wise for me to offer any comment at this stage.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that lawyers in England, Wales and Scotland are still somewhat apprehensive of the functions of PACE?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, again I believe that matter will be looked at by the inquiry under Sir John May.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, does the Minister agree that when a Statement was made in this House on the critical situation which had arisen as a result of discoveries as to how the Guildford Four were wrongly convicted, there was a clear voice in this House calling for the reform mentioned in this Question? Will the Minister explain to the House why we have to wait until the inquiry chaired by Sir John May reports in 1991 as to what happened in that specific case of the Guildford Four? Why do we have to wait for that report in order to have precisely the same law as Scotland has so satisfactorily?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I believe the difficulty is that the inquiry will have to adjourn while the criminal investigation into the actions of the police officers is being carried out by the Avon and Somerset Constabulary. That was made clear on the opening day of the inquiry on 4th December. However, Sir John May said that he would inquire into some of the more theoretical aspects of the inquiry. To that end he proposes to invite submissions on questions of law, evidence and procedure from interested bodies.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the real difficulty is that the case referred to in the Question was exonerated by the Court of Appeal on the basis that evidence was likely to have been fabricated? Does the Minister further agree that we should remember that it is just as easy to fabricate evidence of corroboration as it is to fabricate evidence of confessions?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, my noble and learned friend brings out one of the most important facts. I feel that I should not comment any more about the scope of the Sir John May inquiry, but I am quite certain that he will be looking into those facts.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many of us admire the way in which our police will inquire into matters and discipline themselves, which is surely a unique situation throughout the world?
Viscount Ullswater: Yes, my Lords, and I am very happy to agree. I believe that the police force has an extremely high reputation in this country.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I did not ask the question to which he gave a most courteous answer? I was not inquiring as to why it was taking so long for Sir John May to report. I asked the Minister whether we had to wait until 1991 before considering a general principle of law which is in Scottish law. Why do we have to wait for that report before dealing with the matter?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, it is because I believe that is one of the fundamental matters that Sir John May will be examining in his inquiry.

War Windows' Pensions
2.56 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any announcement to make regarding war widows' pensions, following on the clear expression of views in the House on 4th December [HL Deb., cols. 597–600] and the undertakings then made by the Deputy Leader of the House.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said last Thursday in another place, we have been considering the matter further and my noble friend the Parliamentary Secretary at the Ministry of Defence will be repeating a Statement to the House later this afternoon.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am grateful for the reply from the noble Lord the Leader of the House for which I thank him. I shall await the Statement when it is read in this House.

Business
2.57 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, the Statement referred to by my noble friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, be repeated by my noble friend Lord Arran at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. this afternoon.

Leave of Absence and Lords' Expenses: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed for the general supervision of arrangements relating to leave of absence and the reimbursement of Lords' expenses; and that as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

Attlee, E.

Denham, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Tordoff, L. —(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House of Lords' Offices: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
In moving this Motion, may I draw the attention of noble Lords to an unfortunate printer's error. The name of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, has been
1126
omitted from the list of names. I apologise to the noble Lord and I hope that your Lordships will accept this Motion including the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff.
Moved, That the Select Committee on the House of Lords' Offices be appointed and that as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

Ackner, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Ampthill, L.

Attlee, E.

Belstead, L. (L. Privy Seal)

Birdwood, L.

Birk, B.

Blyth, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Butterworth, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Cholmondeley, M.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Dainton, L.

Davidson, V.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Denham, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Falkland, V.

Ferrers, E.

Gallacher, L.

Gibson, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Greenway, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Halsbury, E.

Hampton, L.

Havers, L.

Hesketh, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Kimball, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. (L. Chancellor)

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Moran, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Nicol, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Peston, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Pym, L.

Rugby, V. Sandys, L.

Serota, B. Stedman, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Tordoff, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Worcester, Bp.

Young, B. —(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Transport Infrastructure: ECC Report
2.58 p.m
Lord Shepherd Lord Shepherd rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on Transport Infrastructure (21st Report, Session 1988–89, HL Paper 84).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, some weeks ago your Lordships justifiably indulged in self-congratulation at the way in which the scrutiny committees of your Lordships' House deal with European economic matters. There is no doubt that the quality of the reports is attributable to the Members of this House who sit on those committees. Increasingly the work of those committees has become more onerous. There is the flow of legislation and proposals from the EC and also their complexity. So the House is quite right in thanking noble Lords who sit in these committees. I wish personally to thank those of my colleagues who have sat with me in sub-committee B.
Whatever those committees do, however, they would be of little consequence if it were not for the organisations and individuals who give evidence and advice to them. The quality is quite outstanding. I can say without any fear of contradiction that I have yet to find any of the evidence given which can in any way be alleged as self-pleading. Gratitude must go to the witnesses whose names are set out in Appendix 2 to this report.
There are also the specialist advisers. They give great help and assistance to these committees. I wish to thank Professor Williams of Southampton University, who has acted as special adviser to this inquiry. There are also the clerks of your Lordships' House. It is a matter of great wonder to me how they manage to clerk not just one committee but often two, dealing with highly complex matters, often under very great pressure in terms of time and complexity, while at the same time meeting the requirements of the individual members of the committee. I should like especially to thank Simon Burton for his outstanding service to sub-committee B. I think that we should also show our appreciation to the government business managers for the way that they arrange these opportunities from time to time which enable us to debate the issues that arise from such reports.
To manufacturers, industrialists and traders the transport infrastructure is a most essential part of their life. There is a direct requirement for a high quality, correct line of transport infrastructure if industry and trade are to succeed. The infrastructure must embrace not only road and rail; it must also include ports and shipping, airports and air space and rivers and canals. It is interesting to know that within the Community some 40 per cent. of the cross-border trade is through inland waterways.
In terms of the United Kingdom it is right to reflect that much of our maritime importance and industrial power stemmed from the wisdom of the entrepreneurs of the day in building the canals and the railway lines to our main western ports. We would never have succeeded if we had not had a strategic political view in the establishment of
1128
coaling stations. In our development of trade through the establishment of coaling stations we achieved more than any other country in Europe.
Therefore today we have a similar situation, except that we are looking in a different direction. We need a high quality infrastructure. We need ports and we need all the means by which we can efficiently, reliably and at the minimum cost transfer our goods within the market place. I suggest that it follows, therefore, that we in the United Kingdom should through our Government be the leaders in bringing about infrastructure development in the Community and that we should perhaps be doing more than we are doing today in this respect.
Sub-committee B carried out an inquiry upon which the report is based. It is limited to land surface infrastructure. The reason for this is that the proposal which was made by the Commission concentrated on those methods of transport. The report is based solely upon the evidence which was put before the committee. It is natural, therefore, that the witnesses predominantly came from the United Kingdom. However, we were able to take evidence in Geneva from the road organisations and from the Community of European Railways.
I think it is understandable that the early stages of the committee's considerations were perhaps influenced by United Kingdom interests. We concentrated on how we should develop our base in order to obtain the benefits of 1992. This can best be described if one looks at a firm like ICI, which has some 25 per cent. of its business in the United Kingdom and 25 per cent. in Western Europe, mainly in the EC. As a manufacturing company its main concern is that many of its major factories are situated in the North of England at a great distance from the centre of consumption.
The company says that this situation can only be overcome by a transport infrastructure which is actually better than average, situated near the centre of Europe. It also says that present indications suggest that our disadvantage may be magnified by a slower rate of improvement than in other parts of Western Europe. One view was common throughout our evidence: inadequate infrastructure is clearly seen where congestion arises.
The CBI's assessment is that the cost to the nation of such congestion is of the order of £15 billion a year. It states that our transport system must be improved if industry throughout the United Kingdom is to be able to compete with the geographic periphery of the European Community. There is a danger that British business will not realise the full potential of the benefits to be derived from the single market and the completion of the Channel Tunnel.
We cannot rely upon opinions given in evidence. The committee also looked at some of the statistics. If one looks at the infrastructure investment from 1982 to 1985 as a percentage of gross domestic profits, it will be seen that in West Germany 0.79 per cent. was invested in roads; in Belgium the figure was 0.67 per cent.; in France it was 0.65 per cent.; and in the United Kingdom it was 0.40 per cent. Therefore, we are at the bottom of the league of all

1129
the major industrial countries within the Community.
As regards rail, in Belgium 0·29 per cent. of GDP was invested; in Italy the figure was 0·27 per cent.; in West Germany it was 0·26 per cent.; and in the United Kingdom it was 0·09 per cent. Those are indeed alarming figures and there are expectations that the disparity will increase. Anyone who has been in industry will know that the cost of congestion is unsupportable. However, there is also the question of reliability. If an industrialist cannot deliver his goods according to contract, the likelihood of a repeat order quickly disappears. Therefore, just as costs may be an important consideration, I suggest that the importance of reliability is perhaps even greater. I fear that unless we can correct the situation we shall inevitably see investment moving from the United Kingdom to the Continent.
I do not believe that anyone would question the urgent need for increased investment and for it to be sustained over the foreseeable future. I am sure that all of us would welcome the recent government announcements about investment into transport. The fact that we welcome it is indicative that it is a change of policy. But what is needed more than anything else is for this investment to be seen over a longer period than at present.
In paragraph 126 the committee says:
"There is a need for a more positive and concerted approach to solving transport problems in the United Kingdom. The Committee were concerned at the evidence given by the Department of Transport, which did not show the Department taking such an approach. There has been a persistent lack of realism in assessing the scale of potential transport problems and in strategic planning for Community needs. Nor has there been any inclination to use transport planning in a positive way to maximise opportunities",
as one now sees in France.
This report is about the Community. Its Commission has made proposals for Community economic developments with a single market. I think it is right to say that throughout the Community a great deal more has been done in removing the trade barriers than in developing the infrastructure by which trade and industry can benefit. Funding within the Community has decreased as a percentage of GDP from 1.5 per cent. in 1975 to 0.9 per cent. in 1985. I understand that the figure has yet to fall further. Congestion, increased costs and loss of reliability are being reported throughout the Community. The Commission itself has expressed alarm, which, as noble Lords will see from the report, is shared by the committee.
The Commission has brought forward a number of proposals in this regard, and it is the more recent one which we are now considering. The committee was alarmed, as I said earlier, about the inadequacies of ground level investment within the Community. The failure to invest may be a material factor in the slow growth of Community GDP and the varying performances of national economies. Europe's transport network is not receiving the priority that it requires. In paragraph 118 we say:
"There is an urgent need for an integrated approach to transport planning in the Community which should also cover links to countries beyond its external frontiers".
We then had in mind the EFTA countries but now with the political developments within Eastern Europe it may well be that we shall have to look even further East in the very near future.
The committee believes that the Commission itself has a major role to play. We looked at some of the proposals on whether some structural change should be made within the Community. One of the proposals was for the establishment of a European infrastructure agency, either separate from or within the Commission. Initially that was very attractive, but after careful consideration we came to the view that there was in fact little to commend a European infrastructure agency provided steps were taken to strengthen the Commission's role. We say:
"The Committee see no merit in an Agency confined solely to infrastructure and isolated from the decision-making machinery at the real centres of power.… An Agency might provide the impetus to break the political deadlock and to raise awareness of the importance of transport issues but there is no reason why the Commission could not do this, given adequate resources. These resources should not, for the moment, be dissipated to an additional institution".
A second proposal for structural change was carefully considered. This was for the establishment of a transport infrastructure fund. Again we found this initially interesting. It might raise again the political profile and might well strengthen the Commission's role. It certainly would be a recognition of the long-term nature of investment and might even be the means by which joint ventures between public and private capital could be brought about. In paragraph 128 the committee concluded that it could not support,
"the Commission's proposal for a separate budget heading under its control, exclusively for transport infrastructure. Most Community funding for transport infrastructure at present comes from the Structural Funds and the Committee recommend that this should continue, but be increased in recognition of the priority of transport infrastructure. The establishment of a new fund might raise transport's political profile and strengthen the Commission's role, but might lead to opportunities for confusion in policies and investment programmes".
Furthermore, such a proposal would have little chance in the present political climate at the Council of Ministers.
We went on to say in paragraph 129:
"Community finance should be available specifically for transport projects and should be guaranteed over the long term. Allocations over two years, such as that recently agreed by the Council, are out of phase with what is needed for long term planning of major projects. In deciding which programmes to fund from the Structural Funds, the Commission should ensure that attention is paid to all the transport needs of each region, not only arterial motorways".
The committee believes that the Commission has an important role. However, it seemed to us that we need to identify more clearly the role of the Commission and the role of national governments. There seems to be a conflict of purpose between Ministers and the Commission. Some of us may feel that the Commission has been emasculated as a consequence.
In paragraph 121 we set out what we believe the Commission should now do. We say:
"The Commission should develop a policy framework for Europe's transport networks, based not only on Member States' plans but also on its own proposals where necessary and where it has adequate competence to do so. This would represent a

1131
development of the Commission's role which is currently limited to the coordination of national plans. The Commission provides continuity through periods of national political and economic change and can link together in a strategic way the developments in Member States so that the needs of the Community as a whole are met. It is a unique position to promote the greater integration of Europe's transport infrastrucutre so that those with political power take the appropriate decisions. It should continue to work closely with national governments to discover where European interest dictates that the network should be improved but must pay more attention to the problems faced by regional local authorities in providing for continual growth in road traffic within their boundaries".
From that we believe that the Commission requires some changes within it; some strengthening. We believe that the staff that is available in this field is gravely short and needs to be strengthened, particularly with professional engineers and the like. The commissioner is likely to be appointed for four years. We feel that taking into account the importance of road transport and the need to bring long-term requirements to fruition four years is too short. We feel that future appointments should be for a longer period. One could perhaps say that of Secretaries of State. In six years as chairman of the National Bus Company, I saw four Secretaries of State. One had the feeling that those Secretaries of State were on their way up or on their way out. There seemed to be no sense of continuity; that is one of the missing elements today.
Perhaps the most important part of the report relates to the Council of Ministers which provides the political thrust and eventually agrees the funding. In paragraph 124 we say:
"The Council of Ministers should adopt a more corporate attitude to transport in Europe. It has so far failed to implement the Commission's proposal to any great extent, or to agree constructive policies for Community investment. This is indicative of a lack of political will to carry out a major objective of the Treaty. The five year plan originally proposed by the Commission was far too short; the two year plan agreed by the Ministers is patently inadequate".
It cannot be emphasised too strongly that an expanding, competetive market in transport services depends upon an adequate infrastructure co-ordinated across the Community and beyond its frontiers. That is the responsibility of the Ministers.
One good example of what I call the Community approach is that of the community of the European railways whose chairman is Sir Robert Reid. The introduction of high-speed passenger trains throughout the Community is for the foreseeable future: so, too, are faster freight operations. There, we have an integrated approach towards services and a Community-wide marketing system.
The Channel Tunnel provides a real opportunity for British Rail to link into a major new development within the Community. I only hope that British Rail will be provided with the investment so that it can play its part in what is called the renaissance of rail within Europe.
The report covers many other matters, all important. There is traffic management in which this country, without question, leads the world in knowledge and experience. There is the problem of planning procedures and of the long delays in bringing projects to fruition. There is also the question of border controls.
In placing the report before the House, it would be wrong not to say something about the Channel ports and the Channel Tunnel. None of us should underestimate the importance of maintaining the viability of our Channel ports and our ferry operations. Road and rail connections with our ports need further development. We cannot become totally dependent upon the tunnel. In paragraph 138 we say:
"The Channel Tunnel should be a catalyst to economic growth and the regeneration of industry in the United Kingdom as a whole. The Committee urge the Government to carry out a specific study of its regional impact despite their present reluctance to do so".
There is a marked contrast between expectation and action by the French with regard to the tunnel. The committee believes that the impact and the consequences of the increase in passenger and freight traffic will be far greater than the department had in mind when it gave evidence to the committee. We have perhaps a last opportunity to become part of the great European industrial scene. Transport is crucial to whether we succeed. I hope that the Minister will be able to deal with a range of the matters contained in the report, some of which I have referred to and some other noble Lords may refer to. I hope that the report has been a useful contribution to the developing debate on transport.
Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on Transport Infrastructure (21st Report, Session 1988–89, HL Paper 84). —(Lord Shepherd.)
3.26 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I am happy to be the first noble Lord to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, on the report and on his authoritative speech commending it to your Lordships. It is a report of great importance and interest. He and his committee obviously worked hard and covered a huge range of business in putting together cogent findings. The message that I received from what he said and what I have read is that although large resources are being directed into infrastructure by all member states, the total still falls far short of what is needed to meet the ever-growing need.
That ominous message goes for us in the United Kingdom as much as, or even more than, for other EC members. As the noble Lord said, we start much further behind the others. We are an offshore island of the EC and therefore our transport needs are that much greater and more expensive. My noble friend who is to answer what will obviously be a string of complaints may take credit, if I may give it to him, for the fact that the Government have raised expenditure on roads over the past 10 years by 60 per cent. in real terms and for the even better news that the ongoing road programme is to be doubled.
Those are substantial commitments. My noble friend must use his utmost influence to see that that increased programme is implemented year by year in subsequent public expenditure programmes to ensure that we receive the benefits we so badly need.
I go along with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, in arguing that transport has been a Cinderella

1133
ministry. The noble Lord made an interesting point about our history of coaling stations. We were a world leader. God bless my soul, how different is the scene today! Our transport needs normally receive the lowest priority. An interesting contrast can be made with Italy which I know well; it illustrates the weakness of our Department of Transport. In Italy, the car is king. The Italians have built the finest motorways of any country over probably the most difficult country in terms of mountains. They have built tunnels through the mountains and viaducts over the valleys. They have constructed a motorway system which has enabled them to pull the country together to make it one country for the first time since the Romans. At the same time they have made themselves prosperous: their GDP is now greater than ours. That is largely due to the massive improvements in their transport system.
In contrast, we in Britain—and I give one single example—always give housing a greater priority than roads. There were plans to build an inner London ring road. The whole line was secured, but because the building of the road would cause a good deal of housing to be lost the scheme was dropped by the GLC. The line has been lost, and it never will be built.
In terms of London's traffic, if we had that inner ring road today, what a difference it would make to the whole traffic movement of London. The old adage, "You can't have your cake and eat it", should be rephrased. Today "you can't have your house and reach it",because there will not be a road to it. That amuses us; it is a joke.
We lag behind everybody; we do not have the perspective of some of our neighbours in Europe. The present prospect is better with a senior Minister as Secretary of State in the Department of Transport. I hope that he will not follow the same course as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd; I hope that he is still rising and will remain high up, looking after an important department. He has a greatly increased road programme.
The report indicates the urgency and the measure of need if Britain is not to lose out in the bright prospects of 1992 and the unified European market. We are all conscious that our manufacturing industry is not 100 per cent. competitive with some of the bright boys in Europe. But unless we have effective transport links, industry just does not have a hope of competing because the costs will be that much increased. That is a point which was cogently made by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. We have already lost far too much of the European market not to have considerable anxieties about this matter.
In this context, the completion of the Channel Tunnel —which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, mentioned —and the fast rail link to King's Cross which will open the way for fast, economic rail transport for our manufactured goods from industries in the Midlands and the North to European markets, is a top priority. I say to my noble friend that it is not enough for the Government to leave this vital matter to British Rail, either with
1134
or without private capital, to find solutions to routes and construction.
The building of this new fast rail link is a piece of transport infrastructure which is absolutely vital to the industrial life of our nation. Her Majesty's Government must accept absolute responsibility for getting the link built on time and somehow finding a way through all the problems of planning, public inquiries and so on. I am only saying what the noble Lord, Lord Sheperd, has already said, but I say it against the background of any influence that I may have. I am absolutely certain of the importance of this matter.
The excellent report indicates the inexorable growth of road traffic which will lead to even more acute congestion. Our much accelerated road programme will give some relief and we must use all other possible aids to try to keep traffic moving. Traffic engineering is not included. It is a minor matter, but it is worth my mentioning it now. There is a need for greater use of traffic engineering. It is extensively used in Italy and a good deal in France and Germany. The traffic engineer is a qualified engineer who has added the science of managing and moving vehicles on the road to his other engineering qualifications. His skills provide for the best design of roads and junctions and therefore, after construction, for the best traffic management to obtain the maximum capacity and safety.
In cities in the United States where I have looked at traffic engineering, it is normal to have a traffic commissioner responsible for the whole traffic management of a city. He works closely with the local authority and with the police, but he is responsible for all traffic lights and their phasing; for all parking arrangements; for all direction signs and so on. The whole traffic light system will be connected to his headquarters and usually co-ordinated completely by him.
Considering the numbers of vehicles in America —many times ours—the traffic management and movement in that country are strikingly better than ours. In Britain, our very few traffic engineers have a minor role to play and it is rare to find a local authority with a traffic engineer filling a senior post controlling traffic management. Usually it is the highway engineer who builds the roads and takes charge of traffic management, with very limited success.
The great metropolis of London has a traffic set-up which must surely be unique in all the world. There are two units of traffic engineering, one under the Metropolitan Police and New Scotland Yard, well equipped with television screens showing every important road junction in London and controlling their management. The other one is located in Smith Square and comes directly under the Department of Transport. It employs a number of professional traffic engineers who study specific problems in London and advise on improvements.
The Under-Secretary of State for Transport has overall responsibility, but the last Minister Mr. Bottomley, who has now gone to Northern Ireland, was extremely good at trying to make the best of this. Implementation of the recommendations from

1135
those two bodies can only be secured by the London boroughs agreeing to it. They are the highway authorities. Each London borough takes a different view of what should be done on its own patch. So this shatteringly fragmented structure for a huge city is a desperate handicap to co-ordinated traffic management, which could reduce some of our worst congestion. If we solve a traffic problem in one place, it has a knock-on effect in another. Overall management is the only way in which we can make sense of it.
The ideal solution would be one single traffic authority for the whole city. I know the difficulty of persuading all the London boroughs and the Metropolitan Police that there should be such a solution. But significant improvement in traffic movement in our capital city —which matters to the industry and the commerce of the whole country—will not be achieved until such an independent, overall authority is set up.
Similar problems exist in other cities and towns throughout the country. My own local borough, Guildford, has the most dreadful traffic congestion. I know Perugia in Italy well. It is built on a mountain and the authorities have built tunnels all over the place in order to get the traffic moving. Nobody has ever thought of building a tunnel in Guildford, although it is all on hills. A traffic engineer would immediately say, "This is the proper design". Yes, it costs money, but what does the congestion cost now?
I feel strongly about the problem of the traffic engineer. Some 30 years ago I had the privilege of finding private finance to set up the first post-graduate school of traffic engineers in Birmingham University. I thought it was doing very well, but in the last two or three years it has been closed down altogether. This is a terrible record at a time when we desperately want better traffic management which would relieve congestion and so reduce transport costs.
I shall conclude my comments on the excellent report of the noble Lord and his presentation of it. Traffic engineering seems small, but it has a big contribution to make in terms of design, with all the new roads and improvements to be made, and a far bigger contribution in terms of the management of traffic, in order to make use of the roads we have.
I put it to my noble friend that this matter should be given more attention by the Department of Transport in order to try to secure better movement of our road transport, a reduction of congestion, and so a reduction of the heavy costs of transport to industry. This is perhaps a small personal point which I have over-emphasised in the total sweep of this very big and important report introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. I warmly support his general contention that transport infrastructure is important throughout Europe, but to no country more than our own. I hope that my noble friend will be able to take the recommendations on board.

War Widows' Pensions
3.40 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, with the leave of the House, it may be convenient if I repeat a Statement about the war widows pensions which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a Statement about war widows. The Government recognise the great strength of feeling that has been shown by honourable Members of this House and in another place and by so many throughout the country in support of improving the position of the widows of members of the Armed Forces and others who gave their lives in the service of our country.
"Previous Governments have sought to give special recognition to the position of war widows and this Government in particular have steadily improved the pensions and allowances payable to them. The war widows' pensions, which are paid to all war widows, are the responsibility of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. Quite apart from the 10 up-ratings over this period, in 1979 my right honourable friend the Lord President, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, made the pensions completely tax free. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has already announced that the amount of these pensions which is not counted in assessing income related benefits will be further increased. At the same time, the structure and the value of age allowances have been significantly improved, and my right honourable friend has already announced a further real improvement, especially for the war widows over 80, to take effect next April. These improvements have helped the vast majority of the pre-1973 war widows, who are aged 65 and over. In addition, war widows who have paid national insurance contributions are uniquely entitled to receive a retirement pension based on those contributions in addition to their pensions as war widows.
"The Armed Forces pension scheme, which is the responsibility of my department and to which significant improvements were made in 1973 provides an occupational pension scheme for service personnel. This scheme also includes provision for widows. Although the scheme is formally described as non-contributory, it in fact involves an effective contribution from a serviceman's salary. This is the adjustment made by the Armed Forces Pay Review Body on an annual basis as part of the process of recommending pay levels for service personnel, which is currently equivalent to a deduction in pay of 10 per cent. Occupational pension schemes of different kinds cover a vast number in the public service, including about 2 million pensioners, and it is clearly not possible to apply retrospectively the benefits of improved schemes to those whose husbands were never members of them. There

1137
will therefore be no change to the Armed Forces pension scheme.
"The Government have however taken full note of those who have argued strongly that much more should be done to improve the income of those earlier war widows who cannot benefit from the later pension schemes and have been giving urgent attention to how best this could be done. The Government accordingly propose to bring forward arrangements which will be implemented, along with the other improvements to which I have already referred, in April 1990 to give the pre-1973 widows a new special payment of £40 a week. This additional payment will be entirely free of tax. Further, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security will be taking steps to ensure that this sum is not counted for the purposes of calculating income related benefits. Both these advantages do not in fact apply to the Armed Forces pension scheme. The new scheme will cover all those currently eligible to receive benefits under the pre-1973 war pension scheme and will be administered by the Department of Social Security on behalf of the Ministry of Defence.
"The payment proposed will be increased in line with the normal annual up-rating. The cost of these proposals is some —110 million in the first year which will be met from the Reserve within the public expenditure planning totals announced in the Autumn Statement.
"The Government recognise the very special place that these widows hold in the affections of this country, the particular debt which we all owe them and the strong feeling of many Members of both Houses and the public throughout the country that they should be treated as a quite exceptional and distinctive case. I believe that the proposals that I have announced today are a proper and fair response to that public interest and concern and a genuine recognition to those whose husbands gave their lives for our country".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.44 p.m.
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, we welcome the Statement, even if it still represents only a partial solution to the problem of justice between the pre-1973 and the post-1973 war widows. We are pleased that the efforts of Members of both sides of the House should have moved the Government to action in this matter. However, will the noble Earl say why he has marred the effect of an otherwise excellent proposal by a partial payment? Is he aware that £40 per week will still we believe leave a £29 a week shortfall for the pre-1973 widows? Will he confirm that? Why must these ladies wait until next April when at least some of them will not be alive to receive the money? Will the Minister look again at the matter to see whether at least a payment of some of this money can be made before Christmas?
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, from these Benches we too welcome the Statement. It is little more than half
1138
of what we hoped for and campaigned for, but we accept it on the good basis that half a loaf is better than no bread. I wish to reinforce the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Irving, which is that the scheme comes in an unusual form. The addition is made in an unusual administrative form and we can see no reason whatever why it should not be implemented earlier than April next year. It would be good to hear the Minister's reasons for that.
We know that the measure will nevertheless be a very welcome relief for many thousands of war widows. We appreciate that the Government have yielded to the powerful pressure from the public and Members of both Houses. However, it has taken a long time for this pressure to tell. If the measure had been announced a week earlier, it would have saved the Minister from his embarrassing ordeal last week of attempting to defend the indefensible against many voices in all parts of the House. Nevertheless, it would be ungracious not to welcome the step forward made by the Government.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I thank both the noble Lord, Lord Irving of Dartford, and the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, for their partial welcome of what the Government feel is a considerably improved scheme to negate the difference between pre- and post-1973 war widows. I shall deal with both the points made by the noble Lords in common because I believe they are common to each other. Our intention is to increase the additional pension annually in line with inflation. I would point out to the noble Lord, Lord Irving of Dartford, that when these proposals are introduced no pre-1973 war widow should receive less than £100 a week minimum and most will receive considerably more.
As regards timing, which again both noble Lords mentioned, we have endeavoured to make the proposed pension as simple as possible. Nevertheless no scheme of this kind can be implemented overnight. I think noble Lords will appreciate and understand that. A great deal of work has yet to be done in consulting local authorities to ensure that the payments do not affect certain income related benefits and in identifying precisely who should receive payments under the arrangements announced. While we wish to make the payments as early as we can, April 1990 is the earliest realistic date for this implementation.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many of us are glad that the Government have accepted the view expressed on all sides of both Houses that an improvement should be made in respect of the pre-1973 war widows? Is he further aware that many of us think it is particularly appropriate that it is he who has read out the Statement in this House in view of his extremely vigorous and active defence of the previous system on quite a number of occasions? Repentance is always said to be good for the soul.
Is my noble friend also aware that, although the Statement represents a great improvement, it does not go as far as some of us had hoped, in as much as, as I understand it, some inequality will continue as between the pre-1973 and post-1973 war widows?

1139
I hope that the Government will continue to consider narrowing that gap further.
Does my noble friend also recognise that the effect of this great improvement is somewhat marred by the delay in its implementation? Is he aware of the fact that many of us —particularly those of us who have been concerned with the administration of war pensions —are fully aware of the technical complications involved in making a change? Would it not have been possible, for example, to introduce the £40 per week increase immediately, preferably before Christmas, and thereby make the widows, most of whom are of a very considerable age, realise how warm is the feeling of their fellow countrymen for them?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter for his generous comments in your Lordships' House. I fully recognise that at all times there was very great pressure from your Lordships to improve the situation. I hope that the Government have done their very best in the particular circumstances. At all times I did my best to confirm to your Lordships that I would make the strength of your feelings known to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence. He has taken very due note of the feelings of your Lordships and the strength of your convictions in this case.
As regards the question of timing raised by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I reiterate that this is the most significant and substantial increase ever made to war widows' pensions. I am sure that that is how the population of the country will see it. I remind your Lordships that the increase is £40 per week, it is not taxable and the entire sum is not taken into account when calculating income-related benefits. I should like to emphasise those three aspects.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the reference in the final part of the Statement to the praise and honour accorded to war widows reflects sentiments that have been voiced day in and day out, month after month, in this House and in another place? Is he also aware that the Statement will nevertheless be regarded by the Royal British Legion and the general public as a very good start but not the end of the matter? Will he ask his right honourable friend whether it would be possible for the implementation of the increase to be speeded up so that the widows do not have to wait until next April? There must be a possibility of improving the situation so that the aim of our endeavours can be achieved — namely, that war widows receive the increase as quickly as possible.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, again I say to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, that what has happened is in the past and that we must look forward to the future, particularly the future for the pre-1973 war widows. Regarding implementation, I repeat that it is a generous scheme and it is not possible to bring the scheme into operation until 9th April next year in view of the need to ensure that all the proper procedures are in hand for doing so.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, while I welcome the changes that have been announced today, in which I am sure the noble Earl has played his part as he promised the House on previous occasions, I should like to ask two questions. The noble Earl has told the House that the change will cost £110 million in the first year. Can he tell the House how much successive governments have saved by denying parity of pensions to pre-1973 widows for a number of years, a parity which the Government seem to accept only partially at present? Should the cost not be set against the savings that have been made by the earlier denial of rights to pre-1973 widows?
Secondly, while I understand the difficulties that I am sure the civil servants are making with respect to the time that is required to implement the changes, if it takes that length of time to deal with all those pieces of paper, why cannot the April award be backdated? In that case the widows would receive some arrears, which many of us feel have been due to them for many years.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, I do not believe that her argument is a fitting one because, as I have said, we should be looking to the state of play in the future rather than dwelling on the past. On the matter of timing I say again that proper arrangements have to be made. It is important to ensure that we are able to introduce the scheme as quickly, as sensibly and as reasonably as possible. That is what we are currently doing.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, will my noble friend say whether the current war widows' pension is tax free or whether tax-free status is confined to the grant that has been announced today?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the pre-1973 war widows' pension scheme currently administered by the DSS is tax free. The post-1973 scheme administered by the Ministry of Defence is taxable.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many of us would agree with him that we should not be backward looking in this matter? However, will he now answer the question put to him by the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, as to why there cannot be backdating when the money is eventually paid in April next year? Will he answer that specific point?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I have already answered that question. I made it quite clear to your Lordships why that is not being done and the need for time to get the scheme right. I hope that I have your Lordships' agreement as to the generosity of the scheme, which provides an extra £40 a week which is non taxable. That is due to be paid from 9th April next year.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Vickers is not present in the House today. Many noble Lords will know that she has been ill for a long time. The noble Baroness is President of the War Widows Association of Great Britain. I know that

1141
were she here she would give the same welcome to the Statement that other noble Lords have given. In her absence I am standing in as President of the War Widows Association and I shall take over from her in the coming year. Therefore I should like to add my own thanks for the way in which my noble friend has responded to an all-party request for parity between pre- and post-1973 war widows. I do not wish to qualify that welcome except to say that we were all hoping for parity.
I should also like to join my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter in saying that it would have been most agreeable if the increase could have been implemented before Christmas. We are talking of people of a very great age who may not live until April; people in that age group are dying. I should like to give a thought to those people who have spent some years fighting for this particular cause and who have not lived to enjoy the benefit.
Nevertheless, I wish to give an unequivocal welcome to my noble friend's Statement today. The improvements that have been made by this Government through the Department of Social Security to meet the specific needs of pensioners are welcome. I hope that parity will one day be achieved for both pre-1973 and post-1973 war widows.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Blatch for her comments regarding parity between pre-1973 and post-1973 widows. I am also delighted to hear of her forthcoming appointment. I believe that your Lordships would wish me to express our sorrow at the illness of the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers. We wish her a speedy recovery and I am delighted to know that she also gives her backing to the removal of the disparity between the two pensions. I think that my noble friend Lady Blatch will agree that the Government have gone a very substantial way towards removing that disparity.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, in all fairness does the Minister agree that if the arguments which have resulted in this welcome Statement had been accepted by the Government five or six months ago—nothing has changed since then —the proposal would have been implemented by now instead of having to wait until next April?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, with respect I must point out to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, that for the last 15 or 16 years all governments of whatever colour have had problems with these circumstances. They have fully understood the case for special treatment of pre-1973 war widows. I am glad to be able to say that the present Government have decided to endeavour to do something about it and to decrease the disparity between the two groups. But that will not take place until April of next year.

Transport Infrastructure: ECC Report
Debate resumed.
4 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I should like to begin by expressing appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for the excellent and comprehensive way in which he introduced the important report on transport infrastructure which we are debating. Furthermore as a member of his committee, I should like to pay tribute to the manner in which he conducted our affairs. Undoubtedly, without his careful, understanding, but at the same time firm, when necessary, conduct of the business, the report could not have been produced. Both he and the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, made some important comments on the transport situation, in the Community and in the UK, to which should like to return in due course.
I should like to divide my remarks into two parts: the question of transport strategy so far as it concerns the Community on the one hand and the UK in particular on the other. Those are the two parts with which we dealt in our report.
So far as concerns the Community, there was not the slightest doubt in our mind that transport played a crucial role in the emergence of the single market. For my part, I regret that transport has not been treated in the same manner as the remaining preparations for the single market. Whereas we had the energetic and effective leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, to set off the whole process of the preparation for the single market in the famous White Paper which he produced setting the scene in broad terms, in detail and progressively, we have nothing approaching that so far as concerns transport.
The Commission has made recommendations, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said, there is the feeling that in the process of time the Commission's role in seeking to introduce an effective European transport strategy has been emasculated. The word "emasculated" was one that we both used, one of our witnesses having used it. The word was used in the sense that while the Commission had initially made some positive proposals, the way in which the Community operates in some respects has led to a diminution of the impact of those proposals.
Thus, we felt that a sufficiently comprehensive view was not being taken of the transport situation within the Community. It is for that reason that we recommended —and I fully support the recommendation —that the commissioner dealing with transport should have that as his single portfolio and that he should be strengthened in his standing and in the resources of which he disposes in order to produce the kind of strategy which we strongly feel now needs to be produced to complement the work going on in other respects in preparation for the single market.
Every country in the Community has its interests which complain about inadequate transport facilities. We might think that we are the only country where that happens; it is not so. There is congestion in all the major cities. There is a lack of relationship between one mode of transport and another in all the member states of the Community.

1143
This is a Community-wide problem. As the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said, we began by considering how to link ourselves more closely with the EFTA countries on the periphery of the Community. Now we must also seriously consider the emerging East European countries. If anything, the issue is wider and deeper than it was when we started.
So the first major recommendation which we hope the Government will seriously take on board is a strengthened approach to the question of transport infrastructure at Community level. We decided —I believe rightly —against the creation of a European infrastructure organisation. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said that if we had that sort of organisation it might work against the operation of the Commission itself. Transport must be seen in relation to all other developments within the Community; it must not be treated in isolation or separately. In turning down the proposal for a separate infrastructure organisation, we nevertheless concluded that the Commission itself should play a more vigorous, positive role in the formulation of a transport strategy for the Community.
What we said about the Community is a mirror image of what we felt about the UK when we looked specifically at its position. It was our feeling, as the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, said, that the transport question has been treated over the years as a bit of a Cinderella. It is perfectly true that in more recent year additional resources have been made available. However, I should like to refer to the important report prepared and issued last month by the CBI, entitled, Trade Routes to the Future, which analysed carefully this country's transport situation as it relates to its members who represent British industry. The report stems from the important issue of congestion to which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, referred. The CBI's estimate of the annual cost of congestion to the nation is £15 billion. That £15 billion happens to represent about three times what we spend on transport from public funds. So, while relatively less than is necessary is spent from the public purse, we have to spend quite negatively on congestion from the private purse.
There is a serious, adverse environmental aspect of congestion. It is calculated that about 45 per cent. of CO2 emissions in this country come from motor vehicles. There is no doubt that those emissions are increased as a result of congestion and of vehicles taking longer to reach their destination and their engines having to be kept running during waiting periods. Both from an economic and from an environmental point of view, therefore, it may be thought that we ought to do something much more urgent about this question of congestion than has been done so far.
Dealing with a problem so widespread raises the whole question of whether we have approached transport policy in this country in the right way over recent years. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, referred to the fragmentation of transport management and policy in the different centres of the country. We found that there has been a fragmentation in thinking generally about transport in Britain. We consider —this is one of our main recommendations —that there should be a much
1144
more positive and concerted approach to the whole transport question.
We have had numerous debates in recent years in this House on the issue of transport. Invariably in those debates many of us have been led to ask why particular transport problems have been dealt with in isolation. Transport is one aspect of the national life that cannot be dealt with in isolation. By its very nature, the very definition of transport is movement. One is moving from somewhere to somewhere else. One is moving quite often from one mode of transport to another. If ever there was a need for concerted thinking and a co-ordinated strategy it arises in the transport sector. We consider that it needs to be done at Community level; all the more does it need to be done at national and local level.
This is, therefore, the nub of the whole issue so far as we can see it. The CBI has not only identified the problem but has come forward with some positive proposals. Its proposals costed out as representing something like an expenditure of £2 billion to £3 billion a year in addition to what is already being spent over the next decade or so. This is a relatively small amount compared with the £15 billion that we are losing annually on congestion. I assume, therefore, that those of your Lordships who are participating in this debate will feel that the advantage should certainly lie in trying to resolve this problem by taking on some of these additional commitments rather than by allowing the problem to become worse and worse, which it inevitably will do if urgent action is not taken.
When we look at the problem, for the short period of time that is left before we enter the next century there could then be a much more serious transport crisis than we face at the moment. Perhaps one of the things we should be doing in the consideration and elaboration of a transport strategy is considering the relationship between the various modes of transport; the increasingly urgent need to have more attractive public transport on the roads in order to reduce to some extent the increase in the number of cars and the need to increase the transference of traffic from road to rail. It is said that even if done on a large scale it will have relatively small impact, but at least let us try.
We move by rail in this country a much smaller proportion of freight than they move in the rest of the Community. Let us develop that more. Let us encourage people to travel more by rail by giving them a better service. We all use the railways from time to time, some more regularly than others. All I say is that unfortunately I have apprehensions every time I use the railway because, although potentially it could be such a comfortable, expeditious form of travel, all too often untoward circumstances develop which for the most part seem to be related to lack of sufficient resources to make it work well. We must therefore very seriously look at this at a time when a new chairman is taking over.
I should like to pay tribute to the existing chairman, who has done a remarkably good job. He was given a remit by government which he has carried out admirably. The fault is that I do not believe the remit was the right one. He was asked at all costs to save public expenditure. That has been

1145
done in a relativelty successful way but at the expense of the efficiency and effectiveness of the service. It might well be, therefore, that there ought to be some relaxation in that regard.
All told we have here not only a very important report in itself but one which touches on a vital issue within the Community at large and in Britain in particular. I hope, therefore, that not only will we, as a result of today's debate, be drawing increased attention to be problem but I trust that this debate will continue until an effective combined strategy for all forms of transport is developed.
4.16 p.m.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, it will be very difficult to follow the last two sentences of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. He has put everything that many of us intended to say today in an absolute and concise nutshell.
The report that we are discussing is an excellent one; it is timely and indeed essential. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, in introducing it paid tribute to his committee, to his specialist adviser and to his clerks. As an occasional spectator —not as a witness and not as a bystander —of that committee, may I add a compliment to his chairmanship. The way that he ran his committee is reflected in this marvellous tome that we are discussing this evening.
Perhaps I might look at some of the conclusions reached by your Lordships' committee. I start with that in paragraph 152 which calls for an integrated approach and that in paragraph 158 which calls for a concerted one. I wish that either in Britain or in Europe we had that integrated or concerted approach to transport planning—not to the operation of public transport, which is a subject for another debate on another occasion. Whether one attends the CBI conference, as I did in Harrogate last month, whether one travels frequently or whether one just walks from Regent's Park to your Lordships' House, one is aware that congestion is a problem. It is not perhaps the problem that our newspapers shout about; it is not eternal. There is spare space on our roads. There is spare space on our trains, but for how much longer? Unless we think, think quickly and act quickly congestion will become a massive problem.
Let us look at where we are going in regard to that integrated approach. In this country we had a very welcome White Paper earlier this year on roads. It envisages a considerable increase in investment. We had a subsequent discussion document on proposals to produce private funds for road construction —another very welcome document. We have in the Autumn Statement a change in the rules relating to how local authorities may contribute to maintaining and indeed constructing local roads, with again some overtones of privatisation. Those are strategic documents, but how strategic one asks especially when one knows that in recent years, in the middle of this decade, the Department of Transport was switching funds from road maintenance to road construction and back again more or less on a day-by-day ad hoc basis, robbing Peter to pay Paul.
1146
British Rail's objectives might be an answer to today's problems. I am certain that they will be announced next week. They are objectives concerned with quality of service and the public service obligation grant. No one has yet addressed themselves to the fact that there cannot be objectives of service unless you get your PSO grants right.
The European Committee of Transport Ministers is not an EC body. It is outside the remit of the report of the Select Committee. However, the committee includes our European neighbours and has observers from Eastern European countries. The committee states that mobility is essential for economic development. It is pleasing to know that the transport ministers echo the report of your Lordships' committee. The same European ministerial body agreed to co-ordinate international activity in order to back national initiatives. Is that really co-ordination? Some of the initiatives are great from the British point of view but absolutely useless the moment one crosses the line somewhere between Dover and Calais.
The Commission makes other recommendations; for example, that the customer should pay. That is fair. My view of subsidy is that there should be once-off capital grant, as is the case in France. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, mentioned the French attitude towards transport infrastructure that is otherwise privately funded or funded by once-off government grant, by the resources of the operator and by private investment.
I have said that I should like to draw all of these things together. To show that we lack integration, I take the example of the CAA's very welcome investment of £600 million in equipment to give Britain better air traffic control. This means that in Britain, other things being equal, one can fly more or less when one plans to fly and fly safely. However, when one gets to the magic line halfway across the Channel one may not get anywhere. It is the old story of building motorways that get you from city to city quickly but do nothing about the problems in city centres.
There is the old problem of people sitting at Gatwick Airport for one or two days at a time. A friend of mine, an executive director of I3ritish Rail, was about to go on holiday. "One week in Tunisia", he said. I said, "Ah yes, but by the time you have spent two days in Gatwick and two days in Tunisia, it is not very long. Why do you not go for a fortnight?"
Paragraph 161 of the report of the Select Committee discusses additionality. There seems to be some confusion about this matter. Two weeks ago the news agency tapes in the corridor carried a story about a new EC document which appeared to suggest that in regard to freight there should be a free-for-all and strict market competition, but that in passenger terms the railways should be allowed subsidies. I have only read the document in French, and French is not my mother tongue. It suggests that one should separate infrastructure costs and operating costs. It also suggests that the accounts of railway companies in particular should be transparent and easily read. I am not convinced that subsidy should be paid. It should be a matter of need and not of right — which

1147
is the policy of Her Majesty's Government at the moment. If subsidy is paid, it should be easily recognisable.
I should like to look at the evidence given by Mr. David Kirby to whom a modest tribute is due, if I may follow the example set by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. David Kirby is to retire shortly. He has run a good railway. He has done the most that he can do with the objectives that were set. Perhaps the objectives were not always right. He has done a good job. He said that British Rail's accounts were transparent and that one could not break up the subsidy. In fact, one can.
I was looking this morning at an interim statement published by Swedish State Railways which, as every noble Lord who follows these matters knows, is vastly more subsidised than British Rail. There is no mention of subsidy at all. One could not possibly break up the figure given to the Government from the operation.
Returning to the subject of additionality, I wonder whether we are getting that right. Additionality should be a matter of top-up and not, as central government see it, a matter of replacement. I recall asking a Question —I am not sure whether it was the first oral Question to which the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, responded as a Whip or whether it was his first oral Question as a Transport Department Minister—concerning the London to Leeds and Edinburgh railway electrification. At a cost of £350 million it is by far the largest railway infrastructure project I can think of. I asked the noble Lord whether this massive investment would be at the expense of investment elsewhere in British Rail. He told me that it would not. However, in practice EC money is in there.
The Select Committee queries the legality of the attitude of the British Government to additional funds from Europe. It could be argued that because the EC put money into the East Coast route electrification—there are signs at Doncaster and press cuttings from the Newcastle newspapers showing the handing over of the symbolic cheque—this investment did penalise. If the money produced by Europe was taken out of the central pot and then devoted to the National Health Service, to defence or to the many other calls that the Government have upon their funding, that would be unfair. It would have been better if the £60 to 80 million had been invested in transport, not least because transport investment is running at record levels. That is a catch-up situation. Transport investment in the railways appears to run in 25 year cycles. Following the modernisation plan of 1955 unprecedented amounts of money, in terms of those days, were spent. Then there was practically no investment at all. Suddenly, the 1955 equipment had to be replaced. That is why we now have a three-year commitment to record levels of expenditure on British Rail.
Historically roads have not had their share and have gone to the back of the list in terms of investment. That is why we need the record investment that we have now. We do not need it in order to get ourselves ready for 1992 or for anything
1148
beyond that; we need to spend the money to catch up with things that we should have done 10 years ago.
The report of the Select Committee contained a proposal about privatisation. Her Majesty's Government have done extremely well in getting private sector funds into transport infrastructure. The list is long. Looking at the matter in British Rail terms, one would take Heathrow and Eurorail. They are both very welcome.
The CBI looks for private investment, but it makes two points. First, the rate of return is not particularly good. It was said at the CBI conference that one can get a quicker return on one's money by leaving it in the Alliance and Leicester than by investing it in roads. Why is that? Is it because the Private Bill procedure in Parliament is too cumbersome?
We have before us examples of Bills that are in trouble—Bills that were mounted by various bodies in good faith. They happen to be quite relevant because a disproportionate number of Private Bills are transport Bills. Both Houses are looking at this matter. The right honourable gentleman the Leader of another place is looking at this matter and promises to come forward with proposals. I dearly hope that he looks at the report of your Lordships' Select Committee and notices what I call the French law of national benefit. This is the parliamentary procedure which enables the entire legislative and planning inquiry procedure, not to be eliminated, but to be concentrated or telescoped.
From conception to opening the French can build one of their by now unjustly famous TGV routes in eight years. That is 200 miles of TGV route. It has taken almost the same time for us to build the one and half mile branch which is essential for the viability of Stansted as the third London airport. The one and half miles of the Stansted branch was not a planner's nightmare. It is worth recalling that not a single house had to be demolished in order to build that little stretch of railway line. But parliamentary procedure stretches the whole time out. Undergrounds were build in vastly less time. I suppose if one wanted a really strong example one would point out that it actually took the Allies some three years from the battle of Stalingrad to defeat the Axis powers. What conclusion can I draw from that? There was a will to beat the Axis powers. I wonder whether there is a will to build the transport infrastructure that we need in this country.
Paragraph 165 of your Lordships' report says that the Channel Tunnel should be a catalyst. In a way that almost draws together much of what I have been saying for the last 14 minutes. It will be a catalyst but only if we get all our procedures right and if we get the financing right. Perhaps we should be looking at more private financing. Perhaps we should be looking at the United States tax exempt bond as a means of securing additional funds. And no additionality, please, my Lords: we need additional funds.
Many transport infrastructure projects in the States—airports, metropolitan railways, the spur roads from city centres out to the suburbs—are built by tax exempt bonds. The tax exemption is given by

1149
the federal treasury. Nobody has sat up —I must be boring, my Lords, Nobody said that this cannot be done, and of course it can be done. As the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, reminded us, you can have your house but you shall not reach it. The tax exemption is there when we have our house; it is not there when we seek to reach it.
The other thing about the tax exempt bond is that it is guaranteed. This is a matter for local projects. It would not solve the problem of the London-Cheriton link. But it is guaranteed as to principal and interest by the local authority, or authorities, concerned if they have the authority of a public referendum to do so.
This is the golden age for railways. That is in several of the European documents and it is in this document as well. It may well be in the document that the European transport commissioner was due to deliver last week, on I think the 5th December about what shall we do for our railways. It must become a golden age for roads because otherwise we will come to a standstill in the fullness of time. It must become a golden age for both of them because they must be brought together. They should not be seen as purely competing one with the other. If we are to achieve our objectives, and particularly the objectives set out by the CBI in its report about the sheer cost of congestion, we must look at road and rail and, indeed, water and air together.
What we must not do is to follow the example of the Winchester bypass. Well before I was born the Winchester bypass was a state of the art road before the last war. It was becoming somewhat inadequate in the 1950s. It was under congestion pressure in the 1960s. It was being discussed and debated in the 1970s. The problem had not been resolved by the 1980s. But I just hope that, on some future occasion when we debate transport, somebody will be able to pay a compliment to the Government by saying, "You have solved the planning problems. You have solved the finances, and now in the 1990s we have a decent Winchester bypass".
4.33 p.m.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, I should like to join other noble Lords who have very properly congratulated my noble friend Lord Shepherd and his committee on this excellent report. I was particularly touched by the idea of my noble friend Lord Shepherd that Ministers as well as commissioners should have a rather longer period of office. It happens —and they were called Ministers in those days —that I was twice Minister of Transport and the total of the two terms was rather less than two years.
It also is the case that just prior —and it took a little doing—to the 1970 election, which brought my first period of office to an end, I published a road plan for the future development of motorways and trunk roads, which in 1989 is far from having been completed. It is very rare that the opportunity occurs to correct the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, but when he drew attention to the problem of the M25 he got it half right. I had some responsibility for the plan at the time, and in fact there were to be
1150
two other roads, an inner ring road and an outer ring road for London. Then there was the M25, which was specifically designed to permit traffic coming from the North or the South, or the East or the West, that did not want to enter London at all, to go round to its destination.
The idea—as I have since discovered—that friends of mine would use the M25 as a means of getting from Tottenham Court Road to Heathrow Airport had not occurred to anybody at that time. But the noble Lord was right of course in saying that it was an emotive question of homes before roads. Although I had a short period of office I learned that you could never be right in planning roads. If you knocked down houses that obviously was a monstrous thing to do, but if you happened to find somewhere where you could build a road where it was absolutely untouched countryside, somewhere on that route the most unusual natural habitat would be discovered and there would be another and different set of pressure lobbies to prevent you going ahead with that.
In short, everyone wants to have a motorway within a mile of their home, but not any closer than a mile. Somehow I do not feel that one could design the road structure to give satisfaction to everybody on that basis. That is one of the reasons why it is much easier to talk about an integrated road plan and planning for Europe than it is to achieve it. But it is right that your Lordships' committee should give great importance to this subject, particularly with the imminence of 1992. As has already been said, and no doubt will be said again, the transport infrastructure is basic to a sensible system of economic trade and the movement of goods and people.
I should also like to say a word of appreciation to our committee. As one who has taken no part in its deliberations, I think I can properly say that I do not think that the European Communities Committee is as much appreciated in the other place, in the Government, or in the country generally as it ought to be. Without what your Lordships do—and do so well—many pieces of paper and many directives and so on from Brussels would never in fact be properly examined or, if thought appropriate, brought to the attention of Parliament.
That of course is one of the worries about extending the powers of the Commission. That is the only real element in the report about which I have a reservation. I do not for a moment think that the commissioners are always able to do the right thing. Some of the ideas about having special funds and the rest of it are an attempt by the Commission—and we have seen many others in recent years—to extend its powers. This is an extension that I would watch with great suspicion.
I admire the properly independent attitude that our own commissioners have taken over the years. One of our commissioners is now quite properly asking awkward questions of the Government, but I wonder whether some of his colleagues would ask similar questions of their governments if the circumstances justified it. Equally very properly no doubt—but I think it makes us ineffective—we do not become involved in the inner politics of all the

1151
European institutions to ensure that we get our chaps into the right jobs. We do not give any of our international civil servants the kind of support that is given by many other countries. For those reasons I am dubious about extending the Commission's jurisdiction. In 30 years it has never managed to have sight of the accounts of the ports, or been able to evaluate the extent of the subsidies which some of the member countries give to their ports. That is an important matter.
I should like to congratulate those concerned on the timeliness of the debate. It follows last week's meeting of the Council of Transport Ministers which showed signs that it was grasping the nettle, as so many noble Lords have said it should, in order to get things done. I understand and appreciate that our committee was not concerned with the aviation aspects of transport but an agreement on that matter was reached last week and we should welcome it.
An interim step was taken towards cabotage, a problem known to anyone involved in road haulage. If one is to have an open market it is necessary that the vehicles belonging to one country should be able to pick up goods in another and take them to a third. They should not be limited to the permits which allow money to move between their country and only one other (which is the case under the bilateral arrangements) and there should not be limited pick-up arrangements within certain member countries as exist at present. I hope that in reply the noble Viscount will tell the House what the cabotage agreement adds up to and also—and this is our expectation—that the interim period will not be excessively long.
The other reason why there are problems, and why transport has been among the least successful aspects of the economic developments of the Community is the enormous differences in attitude between the various member countries. I am sure that the Prime Minister is unaware of the fact that she is not the only Minister sitting around the table at the Council of Ministers looking after her national interests. All the other members are doing so and have been doing so for the past 30-odd years. It is not delicate to mention the fact that that is what they are at but it becomes most apparent when one attends a meeting of the Council of Transport Ministers. The conflict between our Dutch friends and their German neighbours is one instance.
One of the problems with the railways is that, apart from grants, we are subsidising our railways in ways in which the Germans have not. Although the German Government give enormous subsidies to the German railways they have not written off so much debt. It you write off debt and transfer it to a different part of the national budget that is as much a subsidy as if you leave it on the company accounts and it has to pay the interest on the loans. I hope that the Government will give up the idea of trying to privatise the railways. I hope that they will not cancel debts and so forth here and there in order to make the railways an attractive proposition as they appear to have done with the water industry. However, after privatising sewerage there is probably no limit as to where the present Government may wish to go.
1152
No doubt the noble Viscount will tell me if I am wrong, but I understand that someone has added up the amount of debt written off by the Government and the grants given prior to the recent privatisation appeal. The total appears to be substantially more than they expect to receive from the sale of the shares of all the authorities. That would be a bad way of trying to deal with the railways. We must accept the fact that to obtain an efficient road system there must be subsidies. One of the problems with the railways is that 19th century technology is being prepared for the 21st century. It is extremely labour intensive and therefore uneconomic in terms of operation. However, the alternatives provided by the roads have other drawbacks, as noble Lords have already mentioned.
During my second short period at the Department of Transport I had the privilege of attending a meeting of the Council of Transport Ministers. We were then—as is now the situation—concerned with trying to obtain more permits for our hauliers. We were handicapped and had a penalty because we joined late. A further penalty was added by our colleagues because we would not agree to the maximum weight requirements that they wanted for freight vehicles. As noble Lords know, there exists a special derogation which will last until 1998. I never understood exactly why that was necessary because it is more a question of the way in which vehicles are constructed rather than their weight. The enforcement of the legislation is perhaps more important than the rules and regulations.
Drivers' hours were also an issue. During our talks about the introduction of tachographs I had problems with our transport unions which were on strike, or threatening to strike, while employers in the Netherlands blocked the country's frontiers with lorries. On that occasion it was the employers and not the workers who were taking action. The workers were keen to have drivers' hours regulations enforced, whereas the employers were not and did not wish to have tachographs. To some extent that aspect has been settled.
Other questions still remain. For example, there is the difficulty with procedure. Two enormous problems that we have are the Private Bill procedures, which are archaic and make no sense, and, even worse, the public inquiry system which must take place before the building of a road. The building of several roads has been held up for a year after a lengthy inquiry, much of which was spent on discussing the Saudi Arabian oil reserves during the next century. The inspector may take a year to write his report and if, alas as has happened on a few occasions, he is physically assaulted during the inquiry there must be an adjournment and even further delay.
The Government are responsible for transport and, therefore, I cannot understand why measures cannot be introduced if not in government Bills then in hybrid Bills. Candidly, one cannot go on. If the Commission is trying to plan our road and rail system, how will it cope with our current parliamentary procedure or are we to abandon it? Those are some of the problems which one must think about most seriously.

1153
As I say, I very much hope that the target of 1993 for free movement of freight in Europe will be possible. I remember that perhaps the high feature of my tenure of office was obtaining 200 extra permits from the Italian Government. I fear that the gentleman concerned had an even shorter tenure than myself. He was rather eccentric and insisted on wearing his raincoat not only throughout the meeting but also throughout lunch on a hot summer's day. Sitting next to him I managed to persuade him to give me another 200 permits for Italy. He turned over the menu and wrote on the back. I am told that the embassy had some difficulty when it took it to the department in extracting the necessary permits. I was hoping that I might have to go in person to collect them because, after all, it is no hardship paying a visit to Rome. However, happily we had managed to make some progress. The committee reported that these measures had been improved after hard negotiation, and I can assure your Lordships that not only myself but also my successors have gone through the mill.
I have worries about enforcement and implementation. When I spoke in the debate in another place prior to our entry into the Community I said that I have only these reservations: that this country with its traditions and competent Civil Service would probably be the only country which both in law and in spirit would implement all the directives which came from Brussels. In many cases I feel that they are just put there and never enforced because, as is well known, the enforcement of Community legislation and regulations is a national and not a Community responsibility. Unless there are enormous improvements in some countries in drivers' hours, weights of lorries and so on, all the planning and resolutions from your Lordships, the Council of Ministers or the Commission itself will not achieve what we wish to achieve.
While I should very much like to see a more corporate approach not only in transport but also in other matters, we must realise that the way in which we operate in Europe is to be taken from the Treaty of Rome itself. People should read the preamble, which is like Beethoven's Ninth Symphony in prose, and compare it to the reservations made by the six original members; for example, Germany wanted a special reservation for some years so that it could import bananas from Ecuador. The way forward in Europe is to subscribe wholly to the objectives but while doing so to take care of one's national interest.
4.56 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Mulley, but he will forgive me if I do not agree with quite a lot of what he said. I start by underlining what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said in his glowing tribute to the staffing of your Lordships' committee. However, I think it right that as a member of that committee I should pay an equally glowing tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for the guidance and general manner in which he allowed us to conduct the inquiry. Essentially, the inquiry was to look at and
1154
report on a number of directives from the Commission but at the end of the day it turned itself into an inquiry into what was happening, and perhaps what was not happening, on land both in the Community and in the United Kingdom. I say "on land" because specifically we left aside the water-borne traffic and travel problems and the air problems which are to be dealt with on another occasion.
Naturally, as I see it, our report fell into two parts: the Community and Commission element and the United Kingdom. In dealing at the outset with the Community and Commission element of the report I say to your Lordships that I shall quote from the full report, the £18 version, and not the slimline version which is on offer at £6·40.
I turn immediately to Part 7 of the report at page 34. At paragraph 155 the conclusion of your Lordships' committee was that:
"The Transport Commissioner should have transport as his only portfolio and must have sole responsibility for presenting transport proposals to the Commission".
Paragraph 156 talks of the Council of Ministers adopting a more corporate attitude to transport. I believe that those two paragraphs say fairly well all that is to be said.
That is endorsed from the evidence which we had from Dr. Albrecht Frohnmeyer who was head of transport infrastructure at DG VII. At paragraph 66 of the report on page 17 in response to a question from the chairman, Dr. Frohnmeyer says:
"We think that the present situation of the Community network is not yet satisfactory. For 30 years now we have had a Community transport policy but not yet a real Community transport infrastructure policy".
He goes on to say:
"I think we must distinguish what we call the Community interest network for transport, which is really the basic framework of European main communications, and then the networks for road, rail and inland waterways, which are more of national interest or of regional interest".
We asked Dr. Frohnmeyer about his responsibilities and at paragraph 73, page 19 he says:
"For the time being the intervention of the Community is limited by very scarce funds. At present we do have for transport infrastructure about 60 million ecus per year, which is certainly not very much for the whole Community and all infrastructures of all Member States, whilst the Regional Funds can certainly do much more with about 3 billion, 3,000 million, ecus per year, which will be topped up to 6".
Finally from Dr. Frohnmeyer's evidence I quote from page 23 at paragraph 97. Again in response to a question as to his staff he replied:
"I have three senior officials, two junior officials and three secretaries. I have promises to get two more senior officials".
The head of the department of transport infrastructure is there telling us that for 30 years there has really been no policy as regards transport infrastructure, a budget of only 60 million ecus against expenditure of between three and six becus, distributed through another agency, another directorate general, with a staff of eight. Even the noble Lord, Lord Mulley, cannot say that that is an extension of the Commission's activities in our affairs.
Throughout the inquiry the evidence we heard was critical and sometimes despairing over rail and road

1155
links with the Community. There is little planning for the long term and, more importantly, the Commissioner responsible has his hands fairly tied by virtue of insufficient staff due to inadequate resources, to which we, as a member state, are a contributor. Hence there is our conclusion at paragraph 155. Against that background I cannot wonder that individual member states have built up their road and rail systems across continental Europe based very largely on their own individual perception of what is needed and what is in their best interests in order to take advantage of the single European market.
We can all appreciate that the bulk of trade in the single European market will be between continental European member states and adjoining countries because of the physical nature of the area and the proximity of the countries as regards political and practical dimensions which come into play. It is little wonder then that the Community of European Railways states at paragraph 118 that it is trying "to build a common framework".
Notwithstanding the fact that British Railways is part of the Community of European Railways it is excluded because there is no way in which it can make the connection. That is a sad reflection on the situation. If we look at the present position within the Community we see that Commissioner Karl van Miert is now in pole position concerning transport. He is well known to have a predilection towards expansion and a greater use of the rail system both for people and goods. Against the background of the remarks I have just made concerning the geography of the countries and the fact that more goods are carried by rail across longer distances in continental Europe than could possibly be carried in the United Kingdom, it is not unreasonable to suppose that Commissioner Karl van Miert may devote his scant resources in the direction of the railways.
Quite obviously that will be to the grave disadvantage of the United Kingdom because, sad to say —though it is the fact —we have no real entry to that rail system. The amount of money that was dedicated was cancelled about a month ago. Against that background British Rail had to withdraw its proposed Bill —I shall come back to the planning issue later —so it must be between five and seven years before we can make a connection to the rail system of continental Europe. We cannot get on to whatever trans-European road network is being built at such a staggering rate in the various member states because we do not have here a strategic network.
That takes me to the second part of my point which is implicit in the report; namely, the position in the United Kingdom. Dwight D. Eisenhower is credited with having said:
"Neither a wise man nor a brave one lies down on the tracks of history to wait for the train of the future to run over him".
It is for others to judge whether there are wise and brave men in the Treasury or in the Department of Transport. I suggest that that is exactly what has happened in the past 20 or 30 years. The wise and the brave have lain down and waited for the train of the future, which has arrived and very nearly run over us. I am suggesting—and it comes out in evidence—that our Department of Transport has
1156
failed to act or show any sense of urgency in these matters over the past few years.
It is clear in the two sets of evidence that came before the Committee that there is complacency in its attitude. In his evidence to the Select Committee on Transport in another place on 6th December, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said—I admit I take this a little out of context—that the full roads report mentioned in Roads for Prosperity (which set out the full road programme) came before Parliament in the summer. In your Lordships' House the Minister for Transport, my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara, said that the full road programme would be published in the autumn; the Secretary of State now says that perhaps it will be published in January. If that is not complacency, I do not know what is; if that situation does not display a lack of urgency, I do not know what does.
A lack of appreciation of the necessity to build these roadways from the production heartlands —namely, the Midlands and the North —is costing money. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, quoted the CBI figure of £15 billion. Not only does this lack of appreciation hinder the resurgence of those towns and cities in the Midlands and the North; it adds to the congestion in the South-East.
A number of noble Lords have spoken about additionality, The Minister had something to say on this at page 19 of the report when he was giving evidence. We asked him about additionality:
"Mr. Portillo responded that the Government did 'take into account the money that comes from Community funds'. This was only right, because Community funds are merely funds which are provided by Member States into a pot and redistributed".
Dr. Albrecht Frohnmeyer and others, including county surveyors, some of the motoring organisations and the British Road Federation, have all drawn attention to this additionality. The truth of the matter is that any money that comes from Commission funds is discounted in our own spend. That may sound a little over-vigorous against the background of the Government's notification of spend. Record spend was envisaged in the White Paper and again in the Autumn Statement.
I ask my noble friend the Minister two questions on this matter. How much of that is new money, and how does he really see it being spent? Before another PES round another cool economic wind may blow around and cut back that spend. We should be looking at the long-term investment, and only a hurricane should blow us off that spend course.
My noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford mentioned planning, besides the noble Lords, Lord Mulley and Lord Mountevans. I take note of what Sir William Frances, chairman of the Black Country Development Corporation, had to say in a recent speech to the all-party Roads Campaign Council. He said that you can build a road in four years from conception to finish if you do two things—have consideration and respect for the rights of individuals before you start building. It is not necessary to protect ad infinitum rights which are now long overdue for review.
The noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, talked about the Winchester by-pass. We could have built a tunnel

1157
through the chalk hills above Winchester years ago, as the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, suggested. The cost was said to be prohibitive. By now we would have had a return on the investment, and by the turn of the century we would have been in credit on the deal. There is confusion and more confusion, which is repeated right across this country.
We are on the periphery of Continental Europe. That is so in a number of areas, some of which I do not want to discuss today, but they will come up again. Noble Lords will know what I mean by that. Unless we build our own highways and our own bridges into Europe, and into the single European market, which is only two and a half years away, we shall succeed only in erecting a barrier. Our competitors will be able to climb over it. They will cross the sea and they will come to the ports. We cannot even get out of the Midlands with a lorry-load of goods. That barrier will not keep them out, but assuredly it will constrain and restrict our manufacturing industry and commercial services sector to our ultimate detriment. Barriers to trade have never kept anybody out. They have always locked somebody in. We are in grave danger of locking ourselves in.
5.12 p.m.
The Earl of Shannon: My Lords, I wish to make only a short intervention in this debate. Unlike most other speakers, I was not a member of sub-committee B. Nevertheless, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and his sub-committee for this well considered report and for the way in which he presented it to the House this afternoon. He highlighted many of its important conclusions. It is difficult to make any observations about the report without referring to those conclusions, although they may have already been mentioned by other speakers.
Many noble Lords will welcome the publication of this report on the European Commission's policy on transport infrastructure in Europe. The sections dealing with the transport policy in the United Kingdom are therefore of the most especial interest. Transport has an important role in the life of our citizens. If it is persistently underfunded or neglected by government the consequences can be very serious and damaging. It is disappointing but no doubt a true reflection of the real state of affairs that the Select Committee's report all too often mentions the United Kingdom as the country which has got it wrong. Few of us would dissent from that view, given the committee's conclusions about the inadequacy of United Kingdom ground level transport infrastructure, the need for a more positive and co-ordinated approach by government and for urgent action to relieve congestion. I well remember making exactly these same points more than 20 years ago when opening a debate in your Lordships' House on the subject of the roads programme. There is nothing new in this field. Incidentally, I suddenly remember that in the debate I was given an immense amount of help by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, in another capacity. I must again express my gratitude to him.
Congestion is an enormously costly and serious problem. It is a key indicator of the health of a
1158
nation's transport system and the effectiveness of its transport policy. If our roads and railways are underfunded, or where investment in public transport lags behind investment in roads and private motor traffic, congestion will inevitably arise. In London the symptoms of congestion are widespread. I refer to crowded buses, tubes and trains, to clogged up roads, to the fact that journeys take four or five times longer than they ought, to missed and cancelled appointments and so on. The financial implications are vast if we could ever really quantify them. We have heard that the CBI estimates the cost to be of the order of £15 billion. I wonder whether an accurate estimate would not consider this very much below the real figure.
Practically everyone is affected by congestion and has been for some considerable time. Congestion will be a problem for large cities even if they do not have it already. What is new, however, is the spread of transport congestion to many other communities. Road and rail congestion are now quite widespread over the south of England and in the towns and cities of most other parts of the country. Few of our fellow citizens have escaped the impact of such congestion. The CBI is not the only organisation to prepare a report on this subject. The profession most heavily involved in transport matters is civil engineering. In July the Institution of Civil Engineers, in addition to giving evidence to sub-committee B, published its own report on congestion. I have a copy with me and it is available in the Library if any noble Lord should wish to peruse it and study the statistics and valuable conclusions contained in it.
It is worth reminding ourselves of those conclusions. First, and most importantly, it says that congestion will become worse if we do nothing about it until such time as road users can no longer make the journeys they want, or the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, cannot even reach his home. Congestion will act as the regulator of traffic. That is totally unacceptable. What then can we do instead? The Select Committee report recommends the need for a more positive and concerted approach to tackling transport prroblems in the United Kingdom. If that means anything, it means a co-ordinated approach to transportation in which all modes are considered together—road, rail and air.
The report of the Institution of Civil Engineers highlighted the fundamental importance of this co-ordination. The absence of co-ordination is a fundamental weakness in our approach to new proposals which are not tested against this criterion. The Department of Transport needs a special group charged with co-ordinating transport and reporting directly to the Secretary of State. In the various regions of the United Kingdom special regional groups would also be established to co-ordinate local transport provision. The need to integrate transport provision with land use policies is also absolutely vital. It is sometimes very badly done, so that new offices or factories are built without any thought being paid to those who will work in them or how such people will travel to them. Thus congestion occurs. A very good example of this, which one can now mention, is the docklands area.

1159
There are of course longer term measures. However, in the short term other measures must be tried. I endorse the report of the Select Committee recommending far wider application of traffic management techniques such as computer-controlled traffic signals. The problem of congestion needs to be addressed on a broad front and a whole host of measures should be considered, ranging from flexi-time working, much tighter parking controls and radical measures of which road pricing has the greatest long-term potential.
But any funds which accrue by this means must be devoted entirely to transport. We do not wish to create another—now sadly demised—road fund, where money was subscribed for roads through a little round piece of paper, like the one we have on our motor cars, which used to be known as the road fund disc. The road fund was far too attractive to succeeding governments. They started to pinch pieces out of it for other uses. Finally, however, one government suffered a pinch of conscience and decided not to continue with it. Therefore the whole fund was scrapped and they took the lot.
In the long run there has to be a shift towards public provision of transport in towns and cities, accompanied by road pricing. Public transport should be seen to be good so that the public will prefer to use it rather than their own vehicles.
Finally, we must not forget the vast impact which the completion of the Channel Tunnel in 1993 will have on the transport infrastructure of this country. I shall not explore the controversial issue of a high speed rail link to London because it has been raised on many occasions. But like previous speakers I should like to emphasise the need for another rail link. In the long run this may be more important for the economic wellbeing of this country. But it has been virtually ignored by much of the discussion of the Channel Tunnel. I refer to the need for a London bypass—a fast freight route linking the Channel Tunnel with the Midlands and the North which avoids London. Industries in the North and in the Midlands must have direct access to the markets of Europe. The Institution of Civil Engineers is not alone in saying that this is essential if the benefits of the Channel Tunnel are to extend beyond London and the South-East. The report of the Select Committee agrees with that conclusion.
Issues of the greatest importance have been raised and there is no doubt that the Government must seize upon them and act now, please. I do not want to have to make much the same speech again in another 20 years' time.
Lord Rugby: My Lords, Perhaps I may ask the noble Earl one question before he sits down. He referred to road, rail and air. However, did his studies include canals?
The Earl of Shannon: My Lords, in answering the noble Lord I must now declare an interest as I am a vice-president of the Inland Waterways Association. As he probably well knows, we built our canals rather a long time ago. Therefore the lock chambers are very narrow. We produced a type of boat known as the narrow boat to cope with those lock chambers.
1160
When one considers the economic use of canals for commerce one has to relate the amount of goods which can be carried to the number of man-hours necessary to carry them. If the lock chambers are so narrow—and on our canals there are only 7-foot chambers—we are restricted in the amount of goods which one person can effectively carry.
I do not believe that the bulk of our canals can be used in the same way as they are on the continent. There one sees enormous barges travelling up and down with only one small family living aboard but carrying hundreds of tonnes of goods. Such a situation would not be feasible in practically all of our canals. Therefore, they have very little future commercially, but they have enormous potential for leisure and other uses.
5.25 p.m.
Lord Greenhill of Harrow: My Lords, from common departmental experience in Whitehall I know the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, to be a modest man. I do not wish to embarrass him by repeating the well deserved compliments of other speakers. However, I shall say how agreeable it was to serve on a committee under his chairmanship, for which he was so well qualified.
The committee's important function today is, I believe, to draw attention sharply to the unwelcome truth of the highly unsatisfactory situation of transport in the United Kingdom. It is attributable to the low status given to it by successive governments of both parties. Governments have in railway parlance been asleep at the switch for many years. The report calls for them to take urgent action: they must wake up and catch up. That of course will entail money. But surely it is hard to imagine a more worthwhile investment for the present and for future generations.
As time is passing and since another debate is due to follow us, I should like briefly to underline three points which deal with matters which are in the power of our Government to put right. There is little chance of more money but there is room to speed up the implementation of projects which have already been agreed.
The first point I should like to make is that the Government will need better machinery to ensure that the transport ministry is staffed and equipped to give transport problems an appropriate priority. It is easy to criticise officials, but in their defence I should point out that it is very difficult for officials to be enthusiastic and constructive if they feel that Ministers are not backing them. This is what has previously happened.
Secondly, I should like to point out that we are indisputably behind our Community partners in the planning and practice of road and rail transport. We should be ahead in the field. Our country is geographically on the periphery of Europe, but this unalterable disadvantage must not be compounded by inadequate communications with continental Europe. If we lag behind we shall lose out to our competitors and be compelled to move our plants across the Channel. We can never be in the heart of Europe, but we can get nearer to it by more efficient organisation.

1161
Military requirements did much to inspire the building of the German autobahn network. They made its construction a priority task. We have no military considerations to take into account, but we do have the vital claims of our export industries which would justify giving this a near military priority.
With a higher priority for our transport infrastructure must go improved and more rapid planning procedures. Indeed, this has been mentioned by previous speakers. Our present system has merits, but it must not pay unjustifiable respect to minority lobbies and accept unreasonable delays.
The noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, referred to the Stansted rail link. Indeed, one can think of Stansted Airport in this respect. However—and I hope that I am not criticising fellow Members of this House when I say this—it seems to me that there is now an extraordinary delay in meeting the very self-evident requirement for a rail link from Paddington to Heathrow.
The second point that I wish to make concerns the Channel Tunnel which of course has huge potential advantages. However, undue concentration upon it breaks one of the fundamental rules of any efficient transport system: it greatly reduces its flexibility. The report refers to that point briefly in paragraph 139. It states:
"It is essential that ports on both sides of the Channel have good connections to road and rail networks".
In other words, the tunnel must be backed up by good and cheap ferry services west of Dover and on the east coast. We must not attempt to suck all traffic into Dover where a temporary hold up would have the most devasting results.
My third point relates to the future of British Rail. The report did not deal with it and was not called upon to do so; but in paragraph 137 it recognises the particular difficulties faced by British Rail, given the uncertainty over its future. The report makes no recommendations. That uncertainty cannot be quickly removed. The new chairman to be said in the press recently that he would need a year before he could complete his review and make considered recommendations. That year begins in July.
Her Majesty's Government and Mr. Reid could say now, without committing themselves to any particular solution (privatisation or the continuation of nationalisation) that the British Rail system will be centrally directed and controlled so that in any negotiations and discussions with the Community of European Railways our representative can speak with authority for the whole of the British system and not be weakened by any regionalisation in the United Kingdom.
The new chairman will not need to be reminded of the vital importance of staff attitudes. When I worked in the London North Eastern Railway before the war, having come straight from university, under the chairmanship of the grandfather of the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, I was struck by the pride that the staff took in their work. That was at a time when a signalman working in a busy signal box had
1162
one week's holiday per annum and a wage of less than £4 a week.
Mr. Reid is, I believe, a Scot. He will therefore at least have the advantage of being able to communicate without difficulty with the brogue of Mr. Knapp, the chairman of the NUR. do not see how the report will induce the Government to put more money at the disposal of those wishing to improve our transport system. It may do. If we do not obtain more money, I hope that the report will at least focus attention on the problems and give an opportunity for thought on how best we can solve them.
5.33 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, we now come to the closing stages of this interesting debate. It would be otiose if I were to repeat all the thanks that have been offered this afternoon to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, his colleagues, the clerks and so on; but I warmly second everything that has been said.
It is an important study on the important issue of the infrastructure, a word which has been used on many occasions from these Benches by my noble friend Lord Ezra with varying degrees of success and response from the Government. Those transport regulars who are in the House today can be excused a somewhat wry smile at the way the first two sentences of paragraph 116 came out. They express alarm at the weight of evidence in favour of improving the infrastructure. Many of us who customarily speak in transport debates from all parts of the House are glad to have reinforced the views that we have expressed for many years. Some of the members of the committee are what I would describe as transport regulars. They express alarm at the weight of evidence and we should note that we are talking about evidence and not opinions. There is a great deal of evidence which must be judged in that light.
The evidence clearly shows the inadequacy of the transport infrastructure in the Community and especially in the United Kingdom. What is the Government's response? In so far as we can ascertain it we find that in paragraph 124 on page 29, when summing up, the committee says:
"Our own Government has argued that the common interest in transport policy is mostly centred on liberalisation of markets and the increase of competition".
That, if I may say so, is a typical piece of government theology. It is the usual assertion we receive from the Government who fly in the face of the evidence presented to them. From these Benches, we believe in liberalisation and competition; but the committee is right to strike the correct balance in the argument by saying at the end of that same paragraph:
"It cannot be too strongly emphasised that an expanding, competitive market in transport services depends on adequate infrastructure, coordinated across the Community and beyond its frontiers".
From the way in which way things are happening in Eastern Europe at the moment, when one talks about "beyond its frontiers" I wonder whether it will be easier to move goods and people from Moscow to the Ruhr than it will be from Liverpool or Glasgow.

1163
The Government believe in non-intervention in these matters and rely almost entirely upon the pressure of market forces. The difficulty is that the unmodified effects of totally free competition lead to short-term decisions, long-term deterioration and regional imbalances. That is why we are in the situation that we are, because the weakest go to the wall. That is nowhere more obviously seen than in the balance between road and rail. We all know what the situation is there: while it may be necessary to invest more in our roads, our rail system has been starved for many a long year.
There is a great need for intervention and a need to alleviate the environmental problems associated with the increasing movement of people and goods. If the report has a weakness, it is that it places insufficient emphasis on environmental impact studies. There are one or two minor references to the point but it is a dimension that has not been fully taken on board within the report. In the future it will become increasingly important that we try to see what will be the impact of new roads and railways, and movements in general, on our environment. What will be the result of the need to reduce emissions of hydrocarbons and CO2 on future transport arrangements?
The decisions needed to get right that equation need to be taken now to affect what will happen in the early decades of the next century. Integration and co-ordination are needed, as everyone has said today. Problems are not sensibly confronted by a big bureacracy. I agree with paragraph 125 that the European infrastrucutre agency is undesirable. Answers will not emerge by chance. Paragraph 132 gets it pretty well right. It says:
"Joint ventures between the public and private sector must be considered at both a Community and national level. There is no likelihood of widespread private funding of road and rail construction because of the complexity and long payback periods of projects. Private companies will only become involved if there is assurance of a satisfactory return on projects or a Government guarantee".
It is that lack of government guarantee that very often holds us back. This underlines the problems that we face with the Channel Tunnel. Paragraph 138 says it all:
"[It] should be a catalyst to economic growth and the regeneration of industry in the UK as a whole".
That has already been mentioned. I emphasise the words "as a whole", not just in the South-East. The government refusal to inject public money into the development of the Channel Tunnel project—and I have said this often enough in your Lordships' House—seems to me to be at the root of so many of our problems, both in terms of the kind of tunnel that we shall have and also in terms of the links to the tunnel that we shall not have at the moment. The Government's insistence on forcing Section 42 into the legislation when the Bill was in your Lordships' House has led to enormous uncertainty and, I believe, to a tremendous missing of opportunities.
The committee is absolutely right about rail links, but I question one other point in the report and that is the priority for a motorway to link the Channel Tunnel with the South-West and Wales. I should
1164
give priority to the electrification of the rail lines to Wales and the South West. That seems to me to be more important as a first step than to build another motorway in that direction.
Paragraph 137 seems to me to be extremely damning:
"No final plans are yet available to the Committee showing how freight traffic will be handled on completion of the Channel Tunnel".
I agree with all that has been said. The noble Earl, Lord Shannon, who spoke a moment ago about links around London to the North and to the Midlands for freight, was absolutely right and I have argued that on many occasions in your Lordships' House. But I think that there are other parts of the country, specifically the South-West where I now live, where the economy is in difficulty. The volume of manufactured goods is not as high there as in the Midlands and the North but there is a need to stimulate activity to mop up unemployment. If we are not careful we shall be totally left out of any links to the Channel Tunnel.
We should also press ahead with freight terminals. The answers I have received in the past both from the Government and from British Rail have been disappointing. British Rail now seems to be moving forward in this direction and freight terminals and freight interchanges between road and rail are now getting on to the drawing board. I suspect at the moment that not enough interchanges are being considered and I am sure that the Government need again to put some of the taxpayers' money into that part of the infrastructure. It cannot be left entirely to British Rail on purely commercial considerations in the short term to set up this infrastructure. It is in precisely in these areas that the Government need to intervene.
They also need to do something about improving the west coast ports' container handling facilities. I still believe, again in the face of muted responses from British Rail, that those ports can be re-vivified by better handling facilities in places like Liverpool, Plymouth and Milford Haven. It is possible that containers can be taken ashore there and put on to trains to the Ruhr and Milan faster than they can be trans-shipped through Rotterdam and Hamburg. This is an enormous opportunity but the Government need to inject capital into the infrastructure.
I fear however, that I am extremely pessimistic. We shall hear tonight, I am sure, how very well the Government have done for us in the White Paper and in the Autumn Statement. I am afraid that the Government will go on favouring road against rail. Even when there is extra cash available, the Government block it, as we have heard in regard to additionality.
We read what Mr. Portillo said in evidence in reply to my noble friend Lord Ezra at page 248, question No. 728. I shall not read it out now but it is quite clear from the quotations which have already been given that for the first time a Minister virtually admitted that there was no additionality. I have never heard that before quite so clearly spelt out. We have all known it, but Mr. Portillo came as close

1165
as anybody I have ever heard to saying, "Of course, we don't really count it as additionality". What happened when he returned to his department I do not know. Nevertheless, that is on the record. I believe that it is disgraceful behaviour and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Llewllyn-Davies, drew to his attention, it is probably illegal. It is badly stated there. It is at least honest, but I believe it is daft.
What happens? Noble Lords may not be aware, but British Rail qualified for Euro-funding for some re-signalling work in the Newcastle area. That was part of the east coast mainline project. It also qualified for some Euro-funding for the Folkestone to London high speed link. However, the Government insist that this has to be set against BR's external funding limit. That puts BR in a position where it is much more in its short-term interests to look again at other projects that give it a better return than to accept the money from Europe because it is money chasing out other money. That is the way in which this works and it is why projects which could be funded from Europe are not being funded.
People in this country complain about the bureaucracy in Brussels but, by gum! they are novices compared with the Treasury. If the people in Brussels wish to learn about bureaucracy, they should come over here and see what is happening in the Treasury.
I give a wholehearted welcome to the report. I have expressed my doubts on a couple of minor points which I believe are important. I hope that we receive something more than a courteous reply from the noble Viscount. We shall certainly get that from him and we shall get a straight bat, the Government will look at the report, consider it and in due time they will come up with the reply, "Yes, that is very interesting but we can't do it".
I hope that we can go a little further than that and a little further than the Autumn Statement. We have heard some powerful speeches this evening from all round the House. In my view the Government should listen to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, about the unacceptable state of the infrastructure and that we are indisputably behind our competitors.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, talked about complacency and confusion. He asked a very pertinent question: how much of the money in the Autumn Statement is new money? We deserve an answer to that. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, is not in his place—I beg his pardon, not in his usual place. He said quite rightly, I believe, that the Channel Tunnel links could not be left to British Rail alone. Her Majesty's Government must take responsibility for getting the Channel Tunnel finished. The uncertainty which exists at the moment is extremely worrying. It can only be sorted out if the Government are prepared to forget about that section of the Act and come in and take action. People on all sides of the House have called for intervention by the Government on a scale that I fear they will not like. However, market forces alone will not settle the problem.
1166
Last week I went to a press conference where the leader of my party, the right honourable Member for Yeovil, talked about congestion in London, of which we have been speaking tonight. He mentioned the publication of a report submitted to him by a group of people. It suggested a form of road pricing which I think is unique and which my party will certainly consider; namely, that people moving into heavily congested city areas should pay an extra licence fee. However, that licence could be converted into free parking and free riding as an alternative to bringing one's car into a city centre. Mr. Ashdown said that to do nothing was not an option. We cannot cope with any of these problems if we simply sit back and do nothing. The report which is before your Lordships today points in a very definite direction. I commend it to the House.
5.50 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I consider this debate to be a most important one. Transport has gradually become a more important subject for debate in your Lordships' House. I wish to try to avoid going over some of the details which I have already raised in our debates on congestion, the development of British Rail and the Channel Tunnel and other matters. However, that does not alter my view of the importance of the report. I join with other noble Lords in expressing appreciation for the splendid work of the committee and for the way in which the report was presented by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. The way that he presented the report gave us all a thorough understanding of its contents.
It is interesting to note that both the responses that I have received in the past few days from the two motoring organisations, the RAC and the AA, welcomed the report. Generally the organisations were in favour of the recommendations put forward. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, referred to the weighty evidence. I have not had an opportunity to read all the 288 pages of the supplementary evidence. However, I have picked out what I wanted to pick out according to the subject matter but not with any idea of scoring points on particular issues.
Heavy evidence is given from responsible organisations to back up the report and its recommendations. The very first paragraph of the introduction to the report stresses the importance of the subject matter. It states:
"Transport infrastructure is critically important to the development of the Single European Market. Without an adequate network of road, rail and other transport links, Europe's business could be clogged in traffic jams on the roads, lost on an inefficient rail network or unable to fly in congested airspace.".
I stress that the report is concerned with Europe's business and not just that of the UK. That concern and urgency are firmly expressed in the first conclusion at paragraph 151 of the report which states that,
"transport infrastructure in the Community as a whole, and in the United Kingdom in particular, is inadequate and underfunded".
That view has been endorsed by the speeches of a number of noble Lords. The report mentions the United Kingdom falling behind other states in transport funding. Evidence is given in the report of the considerable assistance given by other member states to various aspects of public transport. Some

1167
of the figures given, particularly the one mentioned by my noble friend Lord Shepherd on the relationship of GDP to transport spending, are referred to in the report. Paragraph 72 makes it quite clear that the evidence was received from the Commission and was based on figures supplied by the CBI. Therefore we are dealing with factual evidence, not just with guesswork.
It is interesting to note in paragraph 77 the comments made in the evidence given by the Department of Transport on the difference in the criteria for the appraisal of road and rail projects in the United Kingdom. I shall not go into that matter, but those differences in the appraisal of road and rail projects are dealt with in that paragraph.
It is also encouraging to note that, although the report naturally stresses the importance of the considerable development that is needed in road transport, particularly in view of the anticipated considerable increase in car ownership—I believe that that worries almost everyone in your Lordships' House—motoring organisations have emphasised the need for balance among the various transport modes. If that kind of statement is being made by the motoring organisations, it cannot just be pushed on one side.
Numerous references are made in the report, and have been made in speeches, to integration, cohesion and co-ordination. I am almost tempted to ask whether everyone appreciates what those terms mean. At my party's conference, motions are carried every year on integrated transport but I am certain that when hands go up people are not quite certain what those terms mean. But the report emphasises that there should be strategic planning in the United Kingdom. In paragraphs 47 and 48 the report makes a couple of important statements. Paragraph 47 refers to the pressure that important organisations have brought to bear for proper transport plans to deal with all the various regions of the United Kingdom. Paragraph 47 states:
"But the DTP were not prepared to carry out a study of the regional impact of the Channel Tunnel, because it would be difficult to isolate its effects from other influences on the industrial growth of the regions and it was not expected to have a significant influence on the regional distribution of industry and employment".
I wonder whether a single noble Lord in this House accepts that statement. Paragraph 48 states:
"There was accordingly a call for the DTP to produce a strategic plan for the future, taking account of developments in Europe and their impact on the United Kingdom as a whole".
Therefore, no one is suggesting that we are asking the Commission to work out a plan for the United Kingdom. We are asking the Department of Transport to produce a proper plan and to take into account various other important developments.
The report states that the committee considered the White Paper on roads. The committee had to do this because of its importance. Paragraph 49 states that several witnesses pointed out that local authority roads were not mentioned in the White Paper although these were vital not only in their own right but as feeders of traffic to and from trunk roads. They further pointed out that the roads mentioned in
1168
the White Paper carried only one-third of the total United Kingdom traffic. That point was taken up by the Minister responsible for public transport, Mr. Portillo. His name has been mentioned a number of times this afternoon. He stated in paragraph 51 that the White Paper concentrated on inter-urban roads. It was further stated that the contribution that could be made by local roads would best be achieved through the changes made in the transport supplementary grant.
It so happens that only a few days ago I read a Department of Transport press notice issued since the report was prepared. It stated that the transport supplementary grant in future would cover certain aspects of work on local roads, but there would be a corresponding decrease in the rate support grant. I hope the Minister will explain exactly why that is proposed.
As has been emphasised in previous debates, it is vital that the infrastructure in the UK should be ready for 1992 and also for the opening of the Channel Tunnel in 1993. All noble Lords will await with keen interest the British Rail plans for the regions which are expected in the near future and also the final determination on the question of the fast link.
I emphasise that there must be adequate roads to the ports as well as to the tunnel. There must also be good access to airports. I understand why the committee felt it necessary to concentrate on roads and railways, but the question of access to airports is equally important. Any strategic planning undertaken by the Department of Transport and the Government must cover all transportation modes. It is no good placing the emphasis on roads or on rail.
Decisions on roads covered by the White Paper must be taken to their conclusion within the foreseeable future. It is no good drifting on and changing the proposals for road development in a future White Paper.
I was interested to note a 1988 report of the International Union of Railways which includes the railways of the 12 Community states and of countries outside the Community. The report states that that body is already considering plans for a network of high speed rail links in Europe as a whole, not just within the 12 Community states. That is an important development.
Most organisations gave evidence in support of Community action. Some expressed bitter disappointment that the projects that were listed in the Commission's original five-year plan have now been scaled down. I use the term "scaled down" rather than the stronger term which has been used by other noble Lords. That scaling down was apparently the result of criticisms made by the Council of Transport Ministers. However, the Department of Transport view, and also that of the Government, is apparently that the Commission should have only a limited role. That is made clear in paragraph 32 of the report. That attitude was emphasised by Mr. Portillo, Minister for Public Transport, who said that the:
"Government remained firmly opposed to a major role for the Commission in financing projects".

1169
Looking at the evidence, I agree with the report that there is little enthusiasm for a European infrastructure agency. I would go along with that criticism. I also support the committee's view—and I am pleased that most noble Lords who have spoken also do so—that the Commission member concerned should have transport as his sole portfolio and not also have other responsibilities. It is very encouraging that a number of organisations support that view, including the motoring organisations.
As distinct from what the committee reported, I believe that there is a serious case for considering an infrastructure fund. We do not want a bureaucratic agency, but there are possibilities for an infrastructure fund which could help to finance the essential large-scale projects which should be undertaken in various parts of Europe. I am sorry to say that again Mr. Portillo was firmly against even consideration of such a fund.
If we agree that the Commission should have that important role, how is it to be financed? The Department of Transport and the Government argue that infrastructure should be financed:
"almost exclusively by national governments with very little involvement from the Commission".
I am almost tempted to suggest that the Commission should have a look at its agricultural fund, but that would be to make a political point outside the scope of this debate. The Commission is not necessarily opposed to the principle; it is opposed to the principle in this case.
Evidence from the department and the Government suggests that already half the regional development fund is already used for transport infrastructure. I have not been able to ascertain from the figures how much finance is involved. If the noble Viscount has that figure perhaps he could give it in his reply.
I also support the committee's very strong view that the Commission's proposal for the territoriality of the principle of charging excise duty on heavy goods vehicles should be rejected—not only rejected but withdrawn. I hope that the Commission will take note of that strong emphasis in the report.
Paragraph 64 has been emphasised and I should like to stress the point from the Opposition Front Bench. It is stated that the Government take into account the money that comes from Community funds. I am very pleased that the RAC and the AA, which have communicated with us since the report was issued, also support the committee in its criticism of the matter of additionality.
British Rail has pointed out that its record level of investment is helped by Community funding on certain projects but that that is neutralised because of the additionality rule under which European funding is set against BR's external financing limit. That leads to the necessity for BR to reduce internally funded investment. In case the Minister decides to point out to me that British Rail's investment is at its highest level for 25 years, I should point out that not only is BR merely catching up but also that it is not government money. BR is investing money which it has attracted from its own resources, from fares and from sales of property and other
1170
assets. It is not government money at all. Yet the Government frequently boast that BR investment is at its highest level.
The committee suggests that we must also take a very careful look at speeding up planning procedures. One has to be extremely careful here. We must not take away the opportunity for bona fide objections from those with a genuine interest to be taken into account. At the same time, as the report indicates, we badly need to take a careful look at our planning procedures. It has been suggested that if only clear decisions could be taken on the question of adequate compensation, that might make a difference in some of the planning inquiries.
I have been very interested to note that in its response the RAC regretted that the report fails to take adequate note of the environmental and safety aspects of transport infrastructure developments. That point has been echoed by the Automobile Association in its response. It is important to note that it is the motoring organisations which have drawn attention to those omissions from the committee's report.
I now come to the committee's conclusions. The first is that there is an urgent need for an integrated approach to transport planning in the Community which would cover links beyond the Community's external frontiers. That is stated in paragraph 152. I have mentioned that the International Union of Railways is already moving in that, direction. We should be encouraged by that main conclusion of the committee.
The committee also concludes that there is a need for a more positive and concerted approach to solving transport problems in the United Kingdom. There is universal criticism by the responsible organisations of the inadequacy of transport in the United Kingdom. I am also pleased to note the growing emphasis on the fact that any one single aspect of transport cannot be considered on its own. All modes of transport must be considered and land use must also be taken into account in order to deal with this important problem.
This is an important report. It emphasises the importance of a cohesive strategy and of an integrated approach. The reports of our Select Committee on the European Communities are usually considered very thoroughly by bodies attached to the Community and by the Commission itself. We must now ask that the Government themselves give consideration to the report. I hope that the Minister when he replies will be able to tell us exactly what the Government and the department propose to do with the report because it deals not only with widespread development within the Community but also with essential development inside the United Kingdom.
6.10 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I should like to begin by expressing my gratitude to the Select Committee for a most interesting and useful report and in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for initiating this debate and elaborating on the Select Committee's finding. I am also grateful to the

1171
three other members of the committee who have contributed to this afternoon's discussion. At the same time I very much regret that some noble Lords who had put down their names to speak in the debate have been struck down by the flu virus. I wish them a speedy recovery. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that the timing of the debate is fortuitous, coming as it does only four weeks after my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced the major boost for transport investment—over £3 billion for road and rail over three years.
Formally, this afternoon we have been discussing the Select Committee's response to certain specific EC documents to which I shall return in a moment. In fact, as usual we have had a wide-ranging debate, taking us over a whole range of transport and indeed economic policies. That will not surprise those of us who know well the passions that transport arouses in your Lordships' minds and elsewhere. Nevertheless, I want to focus on certain selected issues arising specifically from the Select Committee's report and more especially from the Commission's proposals.
To begin with, perhaps I may deal with the report itself. Many of the committee's conclusions are ones with which the Government are in complete agreement, in particular the principal conclusion in paragraph 164 that:
"Urgent action is required now to relieve congestion and to increase the efficiency of the transport of people and goods".
In paragraph 158 the committee calls for:
"a more positive and concerted approach to solving transport problems in the United Kingdom. There must be a commitment to continuous funding to ensure speedy implementation of plans in the White Paper 'Roads for Prosperity' ".
I shall explain in a moment how that action is already in hand. We agree that there is scope, as stated in paragraph 162, for:
"Joint ventures between the public and private sector … at both a Community and national level".
Turning to the European Community aspect, we agree that the European Regional Development Fund already provides an adequate mechanism for funding transport infrastructure projects without the need for a separate budget heading (paragraph 159); that there is little to commend a European Infrastructure Agency (paragraph 157); and that the Commission's current proposals for charging excise duty on heavy goods vehicles should be withdrawn and reconsidered (paragraph 160).
Let me go back to the first point—the need to spend more on our national transport infrastructure. Indeed, this is probably the most important point to emerge in this afternoon's debate. Noble Lords have variously stressed roads, railways, airports and sea ports as vital contributors to the national wealth by making the carriage of goods and people more efficient and hence more competitive. They—rightly in the Government's view point to the competitive pressures that will arise after completion of the internal market in 1992. In that they are following many commentators ranging from the CBI to the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors which have made closely similar points earlier this year. Increased expenditure on improving the national
1172
transport infrastructure is, it is claimed, the way to meet the challenges of 1992.
Thus far, that is an analysis which the Government share. That is why they have already announced massive increases in public expenditure on renewing and extending the nation's transport system. Over the coming three years, there will be an additional £3 billion beyond what was planned last year for all forms of transport. For individual sectors that means increases of up to 100 per cent. more. The average is over 60 per cent. more.
For railways, that marks the biggest investment programme since steam traction was abolished a generation ago. BR's investment programme will be up by over £600 million to £3.7 billion over the next three years—over 75 per cent. in real terms above the level for the previous three years ending March 1990.
Over the next three years we shall spend £4 billion on road construction—50 per cent. more in real terms than in the previous three years to March 1990. That preparatory work for the motorway widening and other schemes announced in May in the Roads for Prosperity White Paper will build up substantially through the period with schemes starting to come on stream in the mid-1990s.
On the London Underground—that essential tool to the continued existence of London—additional investment will make an important contribution to carrying additional passengers and relieving congestion. I have in mind particularly the purchase of 85 new trains and new signalling equipment for the Central Line and the completion of the Beckton and City extensions of the Docklands Light Railway.
New plans, new projects, increased expenditure—all these are signs of a speedy government response. As recently as 1984, all the figures pointed to a continuing decline in the use of rail transport and to lower growth rates in road transport. Within less than five years, we have seen the trends change and the Government have responded quickly and effectively. The reason they have been able to do so is that the projects now included in the expanded programme are good value for money. They are soundly based on a careful analysis of what demand requires and what the market will pay for.
That is a key point and the one on which the Government must part company with those who go on from the links between transport infrastructure and economic development to argue for a planned, integrated transport system, either at national or even Community level. It is not always clear precisely what is meant by such terms as "integrated" or "planned". Some, including the Select Committee, argue for a centrally identified and financed network of roads and railways, linking "peripheral" areas and filling in "missing links" in the network. What is the point of constructing those projects if no one uses them? That may well be the reason why such links are "missing". If the market has failed to attract enough interest to finance those links, why should some central planners know better?
Some go on to argue that construction of such networks should be accompanied by measures to

1173
direct freight and passengers from road to rail. Some noble Lords have done so tonight. There may be reasons why this should be done—relief of congestion or preservation of the environment—but the general direction of traffic to any particular mode must necessarily distort the economics of transport. By definition, that leads to inefficiency and loss of competiveness. That is the very reverse of what everyone argues we should be trying to achieve and the resulting protectionism and beggar-my-neighbour policies are the very negation of what the Community stands for.
If I may briefly illustrate my point, the classic examples of integrated, centrally-planned economies are in Eastern Europe and the third world. Many of us who have travelled to those areas will be only too familiar with the grandiose boulevards linking national monuments, the incomplete motorways, the international airports that see only a handful of flights a day, contrasting with the poverty and inadequacy of the means of transport that struggle to move their nation's real business. These are extreme examples, but only too familiar ones. The fact that they come from the poorer countries is no coincidence. It is the misallocation of resources by central planning in place of market-driven forces that have kept those nations poor.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, can the Minister quote any instance this afternoon or this evening when anyone in this House has suggested that kind of central planning? Have we not all said that there must be some intervention, but that market forces must also be allowed to play their part?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I was arguing a point. I have just said that these are extreme but only too familiar examples. When one argues a point, one may argue from an extreme position.
With that in mind, I turn briefly to the ideas of the European Commission and the papers which were the starting point of the Select Committee's consideration. There are six of these. They are listed at the beginning of the report. I do not want to dwell on all of them, but I should mention just one which encapsulates the Commission's thinking. The paper numbered 7325/88 (COM(88)340) invited the Council of Ministers to endorse a much more ambitious programme of EC funding for transport infrastructure in Europe than we have ever seen before. The programme has been slightly revised by the Commission over the last year, but, even so, it is far from clear just what criteria have been used in deciding what projects should benefit, or the basis of any cost-benefit analysis that might have been applied. The paper totally ignores the fact that for many years the Community has had a perfectly good means of making grants to transport infrastructure projects—where, exceptionally, there has been a particular need—through the European Regional Development Fund.
We see no need for a centrally-planned network of cross-border routes. We see no need for the Commission to expand its bureaucracy to do something that national government and private
1174
enterprise are quite capable of doing. And we see no need for the introduction of uncommercial practices in the direction of transport to particular modes. It is disappointing to have to rebut once more the ambitions of those who claim to know better than the transport system's customers where their best interests lie.
It is therefore, good to have the Select Committee's support in arguing against the need for a separate transport infrastructure fund, against the creation of an infrastructure agency, in favour of public and private sector joint ventures and in favour of commercial rail operations and transhipment facilities. These meet precisely the Government's point: the best way of achieving an efficient, integrated but above all competitive transport system is to seek market-oriented solutions, to avoid planning where possible but also to recognise that there may be scope for central intervention to meet limited but specified objectives.
Such specific objectives should, in our view, concentrate above all on setting the right regulatory conditions in which a free market in transport can operate. As the noble Lord, Lord Mulley, reminded us, at the meeting of the Council of Transport Minsters in Brussels a week ago an interim regime was agreed which will introduce on an experimental basis the ability of road hauliers to undertake cabotage for the first time—that is, to move goods from one place to another within another member state. We also made good progress in liberalising air transport, thereby bringing forward the day when air fares in Europe will be as cheap as they are in the USA. I shall come back to that at a later stage in my speech.
We also want to simplify and speed up procedures at frontiers within the EC, although the Government agree with the Select Committee's recommendation in a separate report that member states must continue to be able to make certain selective checks at borders. I should like to take this opportunity to inform the House that the noble Baroness Lady Serota, has just agreed that the Commission's proposals in this matter have now been modified to meet the committee's and the Government's concern.
Let me now turn to specific points raised by noble Lords in the course of this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, drew attention to the achievements of our Victorian predecessors in building up the nation's infrastructure. I could not think of a better example than the way in which free enterprise and entrepreneurial competition have built up a comprehensive transport system. The Victorians did not work to a master plan and nor should we, and nor should the Commission.
The noble Lord went on to draw attention to the varying levels of infrastructure imvestment in Community countries. Those figures are striking, but they conceal an equal variety of definitions and bear little relationship to the matching figures for economic growth in the countries concerned.
There are two points to be made. First, percentages of GNP are relative. Due to this country's economic revival in the 1980s, GNP rose dramatically. Using

1175
percentages of GNP does not reflect a true position of relative spending over the period. Secondly, I refer to the Government's recent announcement in the Autumn Statement. The national road programme has been doubled and so will the roads vote be by 1992–93. We are spending £5·7 billion in three years to March 1993 and a further £2 billion should be spent on local roads. British Rail investment is at its highest level for 25 years and will increase further still, particularly on rail freight and London commuter services. We are also investing heavily for the Channel Tunnel.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, asked about road improvements on roads to ports. I have a list of all the schemes within the current trunk road problem but rather than read them out I shall write to the noble Lord with the full details.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt again but could the noble Viscount tell us how much the Government are investing in the Channel Tunnel?
Viscount Davidson: Not without notice, my Lords.
Lord Tordoff: The answer is nothing, my Lords. That was the whole point of Section 42 of the Act.
Viscount Davidson: I shall write to the noble Lord. My noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford drew attention to the conflicting priorities which individual citizens face when they leave their houses and get into their cars. No doubt if we were debating housing and not transport we would hear about the undesirability of sacrificing houses for roads. There is no single answer to every problem, but we can all agree that transport has been a Cinderella—to use his phrase—for too long. That is why we are increasing investment so substantially. Let me reassure the House that having now put Cinderella back on centre stage the Government intend to keep her there and make sure that she stays at the ball.
I shall draw the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport to my noble friend's speech. I assure your Lordships that he will read the Official Report on this debate with great interest. I am not sure whether my influence stretches further than that.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, rightly drew attention to the recent CBI report and to its focus on congestion. The Government recognise this problem. That is why the road construction programme is being immediately stepped up. That is the reason that BR's investment programme is now at the highest level for a generation and that is why we are again embarking on the expansion of the London Underground after a pause of 30 years. I must, however, take issue with the figure for emissions that the noble Lord mentioned; I believe the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, mentioned this also.
The Energy Select Committee in another place in its recent report cited a figure of 16 per cent. for the proportion of emissions generated by cars and lorries. With regard to the transfer of traffic from road to rail, the Government welcome the efforts of
1176
BR to win traffic but it is doubtful whether that will be the panacea for congestion that the noble Lord suggested.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, on the question of emissions, which is an important question, it is categorically stated in the CBI report that the figure was 45 per cent. Has the noble Viscount taken this up or will his department take this up with the CBI so that we can have clarification?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I shall ensure that that is done if it has not been done already. Referring to what the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, was saying with regard to encouraging the transfer of traffic from road to rail, I have to remind him that road and rail, by and large, serve different markets. For most traffic the one cannot readily be substituted for the other. They also cover different scales of activity. Roads are responsible for 12 times more passenger travel and 10 times more freight movement than rail. A 50 per cent. increase in rail traffic would reduce road traffic by less than 5 per cent. and that might only be temporary. However grants are available from the Government under Section 8 of the Railways Act 1974 to encourage transfer of freight to rail in cases where there would be worthwhile environmental benefits.
The noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, ranged widely over transport policy and drew attention to much of the Select Committee's report. I hope he will forgive me if I select just two of these for specific comment. First, there is the arcane but important question of additionality which was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth and also by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill: in planning public expenditure the Government consider all expenditure undertaken by departments, nationalised industries and local authorities. This is essential for the management of the economy because Community-funded investment makes calls on the supply of goods and services in the UK, as does investment funded from other sources.
Because the Government take account of the likely allocation of Community funds when planning public expenditure, Community funding means that expenditure plans are higher than would otherwise be the case. However, it is not possible to identify Community funding separately in detail in the public expenditure plan. The Government will need to know the details of Community funding much earlier than they do if precise account is to be taken of it. However, just because the extra cannot be identified, it does not mean that it is not there.
The noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, and the noble Lord, Lord Mulley, also raised the problems of planning procedure in this country compared with some of our partners in the Community, and I am well aware of the current problems in certain places.
On Private Bill procedure my right honourable and learned friend the Lord President of the Council and my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal are considering the debate in both Houses which took place in the last Session regarding the report of the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure. These are difficult and complex matters, but the

1177
Government are seized of the need to respond to the report as soon as possible. My right honourable and learned friend has given assurances in the other place with regard to this. The House will know that there is an impasse at present on certain Bills which your Lordships have carried over from the previous Session and upon which we await concurrence from the other place. This too is being considered urgently. We recognise that procedures could be speeded up, but in saying that I should remind your Lordships that sometimes delay is the inevitable price we pay for living in a democratic society.
The noble Lord, Lord Mulley, rightly and wittily drew attention to the problems facing anyone who wants to build an infrastructure project. That is not a source of complaint; it is merely a fact of life. He very helpfully drew attention to two of the major fruits of last week's Transport Council in Brussels which I have already mentioned. There was indeed useful and important progress on aviation liberalisation and, as the noble Lord said, a major interim agreement on road haulage cabotage. I can now go slightly further in reply to him on that. One of the key points concerning that agreement is that it should be an interim agreement. It provides for a 40 per cent. increase in the number of permits compared with the present figure. (I think that means that I do not have to go to Rome, unfortunately, as he could not go to Rome.) It is also time limited. We wish to move to the final stage of full liberalistion in the field of cabotage in 1993. Let me assure your Lordships that the Government will continue to press for full liberalisation in all fields of transport.
I was grateful for the noble Lord's remarks concerning implementation. It is no matter for complacency that we have the best record of implementing EC legislation. Indeed, we cannot demand that other states should liberalise their practices unless we are prepared to set a good example.
My noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth painted a gloomy picture of our isolated railway system. I am sure that he will not be surprised if I take a more optimistic view. The tunnel will provide an entry to the Continental rail system with immediate effect from the day it opens. British Rail will very shortly be publishing its plans, showing how it will provide through services from the Continent to the rest of the UK. I believe that these plans will do much to reassure those who are concerned about British Rail taking advantage of the new opportunities presented by the tunnel.
In regard to the question of urgency, in the mid-1980s we were looking at very much lower growth rates than we are now. In four short years we have prepared, and announced this autumn, a massive increase in investment of £3 billion. That is 60 per cent. more in real terms compared with last year's plans. That sum is for the next three years, but the Government are firmly committed to meeting these growing needs as long as it is worthwhile to do so.
Plans for spending on new trunk road construction in England, over the periods 1990/91/92/93 at the
1178
sum of £4 billion represents a real increase of 50 per cent. compared with the three-year period ending 31st March 1990.
The noble Earl, Lord Shannon, mentioned that traffic congestion is a growing evil and one which we all know and dislike. I can assure the noble Earl that the department is working with transport operators, local authorities and others to combat congestion and improve transport conditions, especially in London, for all travellers. We have a five-pronged approach to improving the movement of traffic: improving trunk roads to take traffic around London; supporting an increasing number of borough road schemes; using new technology to improve traffic management; encouraging better parking controls, and promoting a safe, efficient and attractive rail and Underground system.
I should also like to pick up the noble Earl's comments on road pricing. I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, say that this might become a plank in the Liberal Party's platform. However, we do not like the principle of pricing or rationing. It presents serious practical difficulties. The idea is much discussed but there are few schemes in operation anywhere in the world. Only a handful of cities make a charge and none of those is remotely comparable in size with London. We do not think that pricing in the central area only would have much impact on London's road traffic problems. A scheme to cover all London would be extremely complex to introduce and could involve charging over 660,000 vehicles in a morning peak hour alone.
The noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, drew attention to the importance of confirming the future of British Rail. The Government are not asleep at the switch, to quote the noble Lord's expression. The Government wish to ensure free and fair competition between transport modes, and this is the best way to ensure that operators provide the service which people want at the right prices. I repeat that the BR investment is at the highest level for a quarter of a century. I have already given the figures to your Lordships.
The impact of major civil engineering works on the environment was an important point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. Virtually all such schemes require detailed impact analyses to be made. The views of the public need to be explored and given proper consideration. That is why lead times in some cases can be long, although we are attempting to ensure that they are no longer than is absolutely necessary.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, spoke eloquently in favour of a centralised transport planning. I beg to differ.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I never referred to centralised planning. I referred to co-ordinated planning, strategic planning and cohesive planning. I have not suggested that one body should decide the way in which I should travel.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, I withdraw my remark immediately. I do not think that I can speak any further on that point —which is probably the noble Lord's loss more than mine.

1179
Contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said—and I hope that I have got it right this time—the Government agree that it is essential to improve local roads. We have a large programme of improvement by means of joint enterprise between local and central government, which contributes a transport supplementary grant. This grant has been increased by 15 per cent. Moreover, local authorities can choose how much extra spending from receipts or revenue to undertake, whereas, with regard to national roads, provision is an absolute constraint.
Finally, let us be in no doubt about the fundamental nature, and cause, of the situation before us. Our roads, airports and airways have become increasingly crowded over the 1980s. We have seen undeniable signs of worsening congestion. I have this afternoon tried to set out what the Government are doing to improve the situation.
However, there is one principal reason why we have been debating this issue today; why the volume of traffic using our roads has increased from 271·4 million vehicle kilometres in 1980 to 363·13 million vehicle kilometres in 1988; and why some 82·3 million people used British airports in 1988 compared with 50·4 million in 1980. That reason is the phenomenal growth and development of business activity and prosperity in this country over the last 10 years. Let us never forget this fundamental cause and effect. Certainly we have problems—and I have explained how we are dealing with the problems —but they are, after all, problems caused by success. Many parliamentary colleagues overseas—especially those in those countries known for centralised planning and state invervention in transport—would be only too glad to have such problems, problems which this Government are determined to resolve.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, speaking at this late hour I shall confine myself to two matters. I should like to thank all my noble friends and other noble Lords who have participated in this debate, and also I should like to thank the Minister for his contribution.
The wish of the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, that he may be speaking 20 years hence on the subject of transport is only too likely to come true. All I can say to the noble Viscount, Lord Davidson, is that there is precedence within the European Scrutiny Committee for it to go back over its report to compare what has happened with the replies that have been given by Ministers in relation to those reports. I promise the noble Viscount that two years hence we shall be back discussing this matter. I hope that he will be sitting somewhere else and that we shall have someone else to go after.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Poland: Medical and Environmental Aid
6.38 p.m.
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what help they are providing to alleviate the current health and environmental problems in Poland.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am very grateful for this opportunity to raise matters which I believe are of the utmost importance not only for Poland but for the other emerging democracies in Eastern Europe, for Europe as a whole and for the future of freedom and democracy. I am also grateful to the other noble Lords who will be contributing to this debate.
I am sure that your Lordships will appreciate that if it were possible for debates to be in the name of more than one Member of your Lordships' House, then the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ryder of Warsaw, whom I am honoured to call my friend, would also be featuring on the Order Paper.
Your Lordships may be aware that last week I was travelling to Poland with a 32-tonne truck full of medical supplies. As a scene-setter to this debate I should like to invite your Lordships to accompany me in imagination to two of the places I visited. I shall then provide some of the latest statistics which portray the larger picture behind the individual examples of human suffering, statistics which demonstrate the catastrophic proportions of Poland's problems. I will conclude by urging the Government to respond much more urgently and more appropriately to the desperate needs of the Polish people.
May I invite your Lordships first to accompany me in imagination on my visit to a children's hospital in a large industrial city? It serves a large catchment area and treats children for a wide range of diseases, including different cancers and leukaemia. But for the past two to three weeks it has received no supplies of cytotoxic drugs used for the treatment of malignant disease and it has been told that none will be available for the foreseeable future. The hospital is therefore desperately trying to obtain some from the West.
The hospital has run out of indwelling intraveneous catheters, which means that children, for example, with leukaemia, who need regular intravenous therapy have to have repeated injections into their veins, which then become so damaged that it becomes increasingly difficult and painful to insert the needle, and this distressing situation may continue for weeks or months. The hospital has many other shortages—for example, no antibiotics for infants, no lumbar puncture needles of an appropriate size for children, no rubber gloves, so that nurses must administer cytotoxic drugs with bare hands and no appropriate baby milk powder—and it is so overcrowded that visits by parents have to be forbidden, despite the agonising awareness of the traumatic psychological effects this has on children.
Shortages such as these are resulting not only in suffering but also in unnecessary death. For example, the recovery rate for children with certain forms of leukaemia in this hospital is only about 60 per cent. compared with approximately 80 per cent. in Britain. So Polish parents, doctors and nurses must see children die whom they know they could save if only they had the basic supplies.
Now please would you accompany me in imagination to one of the hospitals I visited in

1181
Warsaw last week? It is a typical hospital. The corridor in the cardiac unit is full of beds with seriously ill people lying amidst a constant flow of people and trolleys, surrounded by noise, with a complete lack of privacy. This is because Warsaw can only provide care in coronary care units for a mere 40 to 50 per cent. of patients suffering from heart attacks. Many must therefore risk death being cared for in those noisy corridors.
The hospital has no regular supplies of essential cardiac drugs. Doctors have to spend up to 20 per cent. of their time trying to track down basic medicines, eliciting aid from the West and bartering some of their precious supplies in exchanges with other hospitals. For example, one hospital may receive a consignment of surgical gloves which it will share with another in return for urgently needed drugs.
Coronary heart disease is the biggest health problem in Poland today, accounting for approximately 51 per cent. of deaths. It is killing more and more people at younger and younger ages, with the highest mortality in the world for middle-aged men. Many could be effectively treated by surgery, such as coronary bypass. But Poland can only provide for 10 per cent.—10 per cent.!—of those who need this life-saving treatment. So very many people, including many who are relatively young and who could enjoy many more years of healthy life, will die unnecessarily.
I could give many more examples but time does not permit. I hope these few give some feeling for the human dimension behind the following statistics: first, cardiovascular disease. A recent international survey of 25 countries shows Poland having the highest figures for rising mortality rate, especialy related to cardiovascular disease. Secondly, TB is a very serious problem. In 1988 there were 18,536 new cases. Poland is 25 years behind Western European countries in terms of the incidence and prevalence of TB.
Thirdly, life expectancy is falling—a particularly telling indictment of the general state of the nation's health, especially when compared with dramatically rising life expectancy in Western Europe. Life expectancy for men in Poland has fallen five years in the past five years, from 69 to 64. This is a terrible figure for a country on the mainland of Europe. It has also fallen, though less dramatically, for women. In parts of Poland, such as Silesia, only 3 per cent. of men live to receive their pension at 65.
Fourthly, there has been an alarming rise in abnormal births. In parts of the country most acutely affected by environmental pollution there has been a dramatic increase in premature births, low birth weight, unhealthy babies and babies with congenital mental and physical abnormalities. Recent research has shown that in parts of Poland, such as the area around the huge steelworks at Nova Huta near Cracow, many, if not all, mothers had no normal placentas.
As the excellent BBC 2 film on Poland in the "State of Europe" series which was shown on 16th November portrayed with such powerful poignancy,
1182
there is a direct correlation between pollution, morbidity and mortality. The most recently published figures available in Poland, published on 30th November in an aptly named article called The Spiral of Death, also carry a tragically similar message. In the industrial region of Silesia in southern Poland the infant mortality rate is 27.9 per thousand births compared with 19.1 for Poland as a whole and a mere 6.3 for Sweden. The number of congenital malformations in Silesian children is 50 per cent. higher than in other parts of the country. In some places 30 per cent. of children have blood levels of lead which exceed accepted safety norms.
The mortality of adults from cardiovascular, respiratory and oncological diseases is 30 to 50 per cent. higher than in other parts of the country. The atmospheric concentration of industrial dusts is up to 26 times higher than the accepted level and industrial gases create even worse problems. The concentration of highly toxic and carcinogenic gases in some places is between 11 and 13 times the accepted level. In the Katowice region, with a population of over 3.6 million, the most densely inhabited region in Poland, the concentration of benzo-alpha-pyrene is 300 per cent.. higher than "normal".
There are also serious health hazards in the contamination of water and food. The water in nearly half of Poland's rivers is now virtually biologically dead and over half of the wells are polluted by chemicals and or pathological micro-organisms such as salmonella. In the Lublin area it is estimated that 88 per cent. of wells are infected by pathogenic bacteria. In many places foods are also contaminated by chemicals.
There is also a serious problem of acute shortages of healthy foods. Recently, when I was in Poland earlier this year, there was a virtual absence from the shops of many essential foodstuffs. Now some are visible but equally unobtainable because of the price. For example, in Cracow last Tuesday I saw oranges in the market, but one kilo would cost one-tenth of a doctor's weekly salary. So many families cannot afford to eat a healthy diet. And when I was in Poland in March I was told how mothers who tried to compensate for these shortages in vitamin-rich foods by giving childen carrot juice had been advised not to do so as the carrots were contaminated by chemicals.
Over 20 of Poland's 49 regions are now environmental disaster areas. These are inhabited by one-third of the population. In addition to environmental problems, inflation is rampant and the economy is in a state of virtual ruin. Lech Walesa said when he kindly visited the Medical Aid for Poland Fund warehouse at the departure of my truck, "We are working as hard as we can for economic recovery, but that will not help us if we are no longer alive".
This is the situation in Poland now: they have inherited an economic ruin; they have no infrastructure of democractic national or local government or of a market economy; and their environment is in many places dying around them. Yet these are the people who are endeavouring to

1183
make the first historic transition from communism to democracy. Is it inappropriate to call for aid and trade on a scale similar to the Marshall Plan to assist them in this transition?
The Polish people regard Britain as being one of their closest allies. But, sadly, I have to say that on my last three visits I was met by growing puzzlement and dismay about the perceived lack of appropriate help from the United Kingdom. Therefore, I should like to conclude by highlighting some of the problems experienced by the Polish people as they look to us for help and by asking the Government to consider certain proposals.
First, there is, of course, gratitude for the goodwill which prompted the establishment of the "know-how" fund. But in several meetings that I had with members of the Polish parliament, including some very senior ministers, there was a sense of deep frustration. For example, the terms of reference of the "know-how" fund were originally so limited that they did not meet the most urgent needs, especially for essential equipment. I suggest that it is a nonsense to give people know-how and then to deprive them of the wherewithal to put that into practice.
I understand that there may now be a little more flexibility in the fund's criteria but, from top government down, there is not much evidence on the ground in Poland of its practical help. I know of certain proposals which have been submitted, and which are supported and desperately needed in Poland. However, they seem to have run into a bureaucratic morass while Poland waits in vain.
I hope that the Minister will forgive me if I say that £ 10 million a year does not sound very much. For example, a single charity—that is Medical Aid for Poland Fund—has raised more money and sent more aid than the recently doubled annual budget of the "know-how" fund. Must we continue to rely on the hard work and goodwill of charities, and the outstanding generosity of individual members of the public (many of whom are not well off and are pensioners) to compensate for inadequate Government help?
These months are critical. The democratic change is of enormous significance. However, unless the Polish people can be helped as a matter of great urgency, people who are at the end of their tether may give up the struggle for reform and sink back into darkness and despair. Massive and appropriately targeted aid is needed for the pump-priming of the Polish economy.
In that context I have one practical proposal for my noble friend to consider which could be the seed corn of the development of a healthy market economy. The Polish Ministry of Finance is forming a foundation to facilitate Poland's privatisation programme and the development of capital markets. I have brought back with me the draft documents and I shall be most grateful if, in due course, I can show them to my noble friend for his consideration.
But I am afraid that within Poland there are now matters as regards which Britain is seen as being less than helpful. They include the difficulties
1184
experienced in gaining visas for entry into the United Kingdom. For example, an internationally famous medical specialist described how, whenever he goes to the British Embassy for a visa in order to attend a professional scientific conference, he must answer personal questions which he finds deeply insulting. He also described how the delay in obtaining a visa has meant that he missed some conferences altogether. I heard that complaint from many people working in different fields in different parts of Poland. Do we really have to treat Polish people in that humiliating way; a way which is in marked contrast to the treatment received at many other western embassies?
Another problem is the language requirement which Polish colleagues inform me is imposed by the British Council. Speaking to these colleagues, who are highly-qualified, professional people and who can converse fluently and freely in English, I was told that they are often prevented from receiving help because they cannot pass the British Council exam. It is an exam which a Pole who holds a Ph.D. in English said was almost too difficult for her to pass. Of course, applicants for attendance at conferences where English is spoken must be sufficiently competent to benefit. But must we place unnecessary obstructions in the way of professional people who are desperate to update in crucial fields such as medicine and science?
There is another way in which we as a nation are seen to be failing to be as helpful as possible. Poland has an urgent need for investment in order to facilitate economic regeneration. Without that other problems can never ultimately be solved. Other nations are moving in fast. Figures that I was given suggest that West Germany has initiated 380 recent economic initiatives, compared with a mere 12 by Britain. Those are the figures given within Poland and I hope that my noble friend can provide alternative, more constructive and optimistic figures. However, those figures are perceived within Poland.
I ask my noble friend whether there are more ways in which the Government might facilitate British investment; especially for example, those concerned with enterprises which would develop the health care infrastucture or promote environmental rehabilitation?
As regards the first issue, there is a ready-made market for the production of equipment such as needles and syringes. There is a well-educated and cost-effective labour force and a huge market not only in Poland but also in neighbouring countries like the USSR. The effects on health care of such investment would be incalculable, especially as the shortage of needles and syringes is exacerbating the problem of AIDS and hepatitis.
The final matter that I wish to raise concerns environmental rehabilitation. I am aware that my noble friend may not be able to respond to the matter today. However, I should be grateful if the request, which comes from many people in Poland holding senior governmental and professional positions, could be seriously considered and a constructive response made soon which I could forward to them. I have highlighted aspects of the desperate

1185
environmental situation. I could give many more statistics but the crisis is widely recognised. Therefore, will Her Majesty's Government consider giving radical help in the form, for example, of converting the interest on the Polish debt, if not the debt itself, into specific projects of environmental rehabilitation. Scandinavian countries are initiating projects on that basis in order to clean up the Vistula which at present is discharging a lethal soup of chemical and human waste into the Baltic. But there are many other urgent environmental problems which need solutions but which the Poles cannot afford and which are taking their toll in human suffering and death.
I hope passionately that we as a nation will gladly and generously help the Polish people to whom we owe so much historically and culturally. I dare to hope that we may help them with no ulterior motive of self-interest. But, so far, we seem to be sadly lacking, if not in words and ostensible goodwill, at least in practical help of significant proportions. So, if we have to look beyond the ties of friendship and the inspiration of human compassion and concern in order to prompt adequate help, we might remember that environmental pollution knows no national or geographical boundaries and that we share the same continent of Europe.
We might also remember that the Polish people were the first to achieve historic free elections as the first step on the road from communist totalitarionism to democratic freedom. If they fail to flourish in that freedom through economic disaster or environmental destruction they may sink back into an even darker age and, in so doing, undermine the other emergent democracies around them. In that case, I suggest that we shall bear a heavy burden of guilt. I plead with the Government to avoid that possibility by providing help urgently, appropriately, sensitively and on a scale commensurate with the enormous issues at stake. In the interests of humanity, freedom and, I hope least important, of ourselves, we can and we must do that.
A close Polish friend pleaded with me, "Please do not forget us or let us down again". I echo and endorse his plea with all my heart.
7 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships will all be grateful to the noble Baroness for raising this matter today so eloquently and comprehensively. I should like to associate myself with everything she has said and above all, with the spirit in which she said it. I also associate myself with the basic criticism which she makes of our Government's approach to this problem; namely, that it is too narrow, too unimaginative and unworthy of the challenge which confronts us.
In particular, I support what she said about visas. That has long been a disgrace and that it should remain so is even more disgraceful. In addition to that, I should like to share wholeheartedly in her comments about the "know-how" fund. That fund is fine but not enough in itself. If it were part of a larger and more imaginative plan for aid, it would have a much more constructive place than it does
1186
as the main contribution which we appear to be making as a country.
In addition, I agree with what the noble Baroness said about joint ventures and the gross and shameful disproportion between this country's contribution in that sphere and that of Germany. It would be the final irony in Polish history if, having escaped from the Russian embrace, it fell into a German economic embrace. We are in a position, as are other countries in Europe, to do something to prevent that fate occurring.
Therefore, we are very grateful to the noble Baroness for raising this Question particularly at this time as 13th December will be the first ministerial meeting of the Group of 24, which is co-ordinating aid to Poland from the West. I hope that at that meeting the points which the noble Baroness has raised will be in the Minister's mind.
I shall not follow the noble Baroness in her examination of the medical crisis in Poland about which she is far more expert than I, as is the noble Baroness, Lady Ryder. I only say that I can confirm everything she has said from my own knowledge. In particular, I shall return to the question of the price of food which is highly relevant to the health of Poland.
Nor shall I discuss at length the environmental crisis except to say that the Polish Academy of Sciences has described Poland as an environmental disaster area. Every year Nova Huta, with its huge antediluvian steelworks dumps on neighbouring Cracow, one of the most beautiful cities in Europe, 170 tonnes of lead, 7 tonnes of cadmium, 470 tonnes of zinc and 18 tonnes of iron dust. For 135 days per annum Cracow is enveloped in what is known as stationery smog, dissolving the architecture almost in front of one's eyes.
As the noble Baroness said, that is not a national but an international crisis and requires an international response as does the destruction of 30,000 acres of forest and the pollution of the Baltic. Those are not minor matters which we can neglect. They are matters of critical size and importance to the whole European community.
However, of course, the crisis facing Poland is not only ecological. As we all know, it is political and economic. The political revolution is unlikely to succeed unless the Poles successfully tackle the short and long-term economic problems. Unless they successfully tackle the short-term economic problems, there will be no opportunity to tackle them in the long term. Therefore, I should like to say a few words on the short-term problems this evening.
In the short term, Poland is facing inflation at over 600 per cent., a massive rise in food prices since the abandonment of rationing and price regulation and, at the same time, an acute shortage of food. Therefore, the importance of food aid to avert starvation is not limited to that crucial aim but is also to slow down and then to stablilize the rise in prices. Unless that is done, the forces of inflation will gather strength and may destroy the political prospects of reform.

1187
As far as I can discover, the present position is that the supply of food which is rightly being channelled through the EC, as was agreed at the July summit, and which has been co-ordinated at three meetings of the Group of 24, has, as I said earlier, to be further developed on 13th December at the first ministerial meeting, at which representatives of both the Polish and Hungarian governments will be present. According to the figures which I obtained from the Polish Embassy and the Commission, so far of the 1 million tonnes of grain which the West has promised, 500,000 tonnes have arrived; of the 10,000 tonnes of meat, all has arrived; of the remaining 500,000 tonnes of grain, most will arrive before the end of the year; of olive oil, two-thirds has arrived; and citrus fruits will arrive in January and February. All the monies from those sales will go to the central agricultural fund which is used for the restructuring of Polish agriculture.
The questions about that are relatively simple. The first question is: how does that match up to Polish needs? Has that infusion of food had any effect on prices? Has it had any effect on preventing the hoarding of food by peasants? I do not believe that it is easy to find answers to those questions at present but it seems to me essential that we do find answers. Let us take, for example, the 10,000 tonnes of meat. When rationing was taking place, the ration was 2·5 kilos per month which meant about 90,000 tonnes per year. That was a minimal ration. It seems to me very probable that a mere 10,000 tonnes is not enough to bring down prices or increase supplies. I do not know that, but we should know in planning what deliveries are to be made next year. That is what the ministerial meeting on 13th December will decide.
The second matter about which one cannot be sure is whether that food is in the shops. We have so many records of aid supplied which did not in fact reach the people for whom it was intended. Therefore, those questions seem to me the kind of questions which need to be asked and answered. The fact is that a more elaborate system of monitoring and reporting is required than that which we now have.
What we are saying, or what those of us who have followed the fortunes of Poland for the past 30 or 40 years are saying, is that we are now at a critical point where the whole of Polish history might be changed for the better. If that possibility is missed, simply through lack of help from the West and from this country in particular, it will be a defeat and a missed opportunity which we shall not be able lightly to forget. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord who is answering this debate will have positive news to give us because only if a programme of aid succeeds will Poland be able to deliver the political reforms which she has promised to her people. Only if those promises are delivered will the great hopes which have led to this extraordinary transformation in Poland, which has spread throughout Eastern Europe, have any possibility of being fulfilled.
7.10 p.m.
Baroness Ryder of Warsaw: My Lords, I fully endorse all that the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, has
1188
said in her speech. Since the age of sixteen and a half my life has been spent with the Poles. During the last war I had the privilege of serving with them in the highly secret section of Special Operations Executive. After the war was over in 1945 I worked as an auxiliary nurse in the ruins of their country. Only two of their beautiful cities escaped destruction; namely, Lublin and Cracow. This was only because the Germans and the Soviets had no time to destroy them.
I remind your Lordships that on 17th July 1939 General Ironside, the Inspector General of Forces and senior military commander of the British Army, flew out to Poland. He was enormously impressed by the spirit that the Poles displayed and their willingness to resist the Germans. But they desperately needed help, particularly for their armed forces. General Ironside spoke Polish and collaborated with Colin Gubbins, who later became our commanding officer of special operations. Both of them had a tremendous respect and affection for Poland.
General Ironside returned to this country later on in the summer of 1939, feeling both eager and enthusiastic. But he found that Mr. Hore-Belisha, the War Minister, had gone to the Committee of Imperial Defence without asking him for his opinion. Neither the Cabinet nor the Government did anything to help Poland. Therefore Britain's "all help within our power" meant nothing except a few outdated machine-guns and obsolete aircraft sent via Turkey and which, I believe, never reached them.
On 31st March 1939 Mr. Neville Chamberlain and Mr. Eduard Daladier of France, guaranteed Poland help but not necessarily her frontiers. The appeasement shown by the press was equally appalling. Thus these devious and weak attitudes allowed Hitler to make further and far stronger claims on Polish territory. On 20th August 1939 the Prime Minister remained fishing in Scotland. On 1st September 1939, as noble Lords will remember, Hitler and his armies invaded Poland and were able to crush the Poles in spite of the brave resistance that they encountered from the Polish army, navy and air force.
The Germans had previously made a non-aggression pact with Stalin and his government, which invaded Poland from the east. They deported one and a half million Poles, mainly to Siberia, and killed 12,000 of their army officers and intellectuals at Katyn and other camps. In addition, countless thousands more were killed. So Poland was divided by the Soviets and the Nazis, who incorporated the country into the German Reich. Only the central part was left but cruelly occupied under the rule of what was called the General Government under the notorious SS governor Frank, who lived in the Royal Castle at Cracow.
At Yalta the allies agreed that the territories belonging to Poland in the East, including their two principal university cities of Lublin and Vilna, were to be given to the Soviet Union, and this action was taken with little or no consultation with the Polish Government in exile. Furthermore, alas, the British Government—and I say this as a member of

1189
SOE who had to decode signals with the Poles—disregarded their warning and that given by the Polish resistance movement in Poland, of the Soviet intention of expansion on Polish territory and elsewhere in Europe and, later on, in the world.
At Potsdam Mr. Clement Attlee agreed wih the Americans that the Soviet claims would be fully accepted. I could say far more. I am stating these facts to remind noble Lords of the historical background in order to show that we now have a golden opportunity to fulfil our moral obligations. What I am trying to stress is that we let down the Poles in 1939 by giving them false hopes and promises and again in 1944 when we were unable to help them during the Warsaw Uprising, when they lost 250,000 men, women and children in their single-handed fight against the might of the Germans while the Russians stood back in the suburbs of Warsaw across the River Vistula and awaited the Poles' fate.
It is not only an extremely tragic and poignant part of their history, but one which I, who had the privilege of serving with their countrymen and women, will never forget; neither shall I forget, sadly, Britain's lack of action. None of the Poles with whom I served showed bitterness and indeed they continued to fight on regardless of the fact that they knew they would never see liberty and freedom in their beloved country when the war ended. They entered another dark age existing in a hopeless and inefficient Soviet system, trying to be as independent as possible.
We have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, about the desperate shortages in Poland. I too can confirm from numerous visits made recently that current inflation is now running at between 600 per cent. and 1,000 per cent. To give noble Lords some idea of the cost of food out there, I quote the following: meat with bone and fat, is costing 3,600 zlotys per kilo; bread, which used to be inexpensive, originally cost nine zlotys, then 30 and later 64 zlotys per kilo. Now one loaf costs between 1,000 and 1,800 zlotys per kilo. Sugar used to cost 64 zlotys per kilo and it is now between 2,450 and 3,200 zlotys per kilo and is often unavailable. Soap is just available. Previously it cost only a few zlotys, but it now costs between 400 to 500 zlotys per tablet. Three years ago the Poles were rationed to one bar of soap per month. There is also a great shortage of loo paper. Milk powder for babies is also extremely scarce.
Pensions and salaries are desperately low. Both husbands and wives and indeed all women, work by tradition and because of the economic situation. Therefore people often cannot afford to buy food, if there is any. We know that there are over 4 million people in Poland who are now living well below subsistence level. At present 180 soup kitchens are organised by the Church. Bishop Domin, in Katowice, who is responsible fv. the distribution of food and medical supplies from organisations, has asked me to provide much more. The Bishop, a close friend, is in constant touch with the foundation. Since 1981, when the last crisis really started, the foundation has supplied clothing, food and medicine to the value of several million pounds.
1190
The dilemma I face, both by day and by night, is whether the foundation should continue as often as possible to spend £55,000 to £60,000 on basic essential food and medicines whenever money can be raised for one 25-tonne lorry, or should decide on another equally important priority—the provision of more hospitals and homes. The surgeons frequently ask me on whom they should operate. Hear she—it is usually a woman —points to children and says, "This one has a brain tumour; the other has leukaemia. What do I do? Do I treat one; and if I do, which one do I choose?" What a position to be in. And this is 1989.
Children take their homework into the interminable queues, and both men and women also join them with their office work, or whatever else. I have seen people collapse and die in the queues. If there are no queues it means there is no food in the so-called "shops" or kiosks. Nobody in this country, including those who knew wartime rationing and hardships, can possibly imagine what the Poles have put up with during the past 50 years. It is not only their courage and faith which amaze me, but their dogged determination against all odds to become a free and democratic country. They never give in. Despite the shortage of building materials, and in addition to all the churches which have been reconstructed, such is the strength of their faith that the Poles are struggling to build a further 2,200. They are doing so without equipment and during their few precious moments of free time.
The foundation which bears my name has since the mid-1950s provided Poland with 28 homes, oncology (cancer) centres or small hospitals. More than 80,000 adults and children have been nursed and cared for. However, we are touching only the tip of the iceberg. All building materials are shipped out from this country. The buildings are erected by our own tradesmen, many of them volunteers, together with local Poles. Once the building is erected, it is taken over by qualified Polish staff and run by them. Each home or hospital is financed by the local authority in agreement with the foundation. The foundation is responsible for maintenance of the buildings and also for replacing all furnishings, except for elaborate medical equipment in the oncology centres which we cannot afford. I could give a long list of their requests and needs, but I do not wish to take up more of your Lordships' time.
What Poland requires most now, and in the long term too, is managerial assistance and advice, as my noble friend Lady Cox has explained In addition, the Sue Ryder Foundation has an opportunity to build at least another six, 10 or 20 homes or hospitals, each costing at least £400,000. These, as before, will be manufactured in Britain and sent out on board Polish ships. We receive free freight from the Polish Government.
Many thousands of patients are treated every year in our homes, hospitals or oncology centres in Poland, but every bed has at least 50 patients —often children —waiting for it. I hope to launch a special appeal for Poland but I do not think it right that the foundation should do this on its own, relying on donations from schoolchildren, pensioners and others who are not well off. I plead that the

1191
Government, together with other countries and the EC, should be persuaded to give extra assistance to carry out this vital work among the very poor, the handicapped and the sick.
We have a duty and an obligation to fulfil broken promises to an ally who stood with us throughout the war and fought on every front except in the Far East. Poland lost more than six million of its citizens. It is a privilege to work for Poland and I beg noble Lords never to forget them or their faith and courage. Please let us take more action immediately. Perhaps I may conclude with these words scribbled on the wall of an underground cell in the infamous Gestapo interrogation headquarters of Aleja Szucha in Warsaw:
"It's easy to talk about Poland,
It's harder to work for her,
Still harder to die;
And the hardest is to suffer".
7.26 p.m.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, I am completely unqualified to take up the House's time, particularly after we have listened to the harrowing accounts given by my noble friend Lady Cox —I am glad to see her safely back from her latest journey —and by the noble Baroness, Lady Ryder of Warsaw, whose name is so well known in connection with help for Poland.
It is memories that bring me to my feet. I was sent by The Times to cover the outbreak of war in Poland in 1939. I arrived there at the end of June or in early July and stayed until there were no longer any communications. I say that my memories come flooding back because one of the awful things I remember at that time was the hideous, shameful and infamous question-begging leader in my own newspaper, The Times, headed "Is Danzig worth a war?" One may say that it was not but my goodness the real question was whether any country would stand up to Hitler and take the consequences. Did we British relish the prospect —many of us did not believe that it was real until very near the point of decision in the Battle of Britain —that our own little island would be overrun and that we would end up speaking English, as somebody put, with the verb at the end?
People now forget the painless, unresisting Anschluss, when Austria joined Hitler's Germany with a shout and a song. People now forget the reoccupation of the Rhineland, and how the West was paralysed with fear, cowardice and indecision and did absolutely nothing to enforce the provisions of the Locarno Treaty, which was designed to meet that very situation. We hear talk today of anchoring Germany to Western Europe. I hope that if there is an anchor it is better than the Locarno Treaty. That was thought to be the great barrier in those days —a barrier rotted by cowardice.
Britain and France were guilty before history of letting things rip. There then followed the Munich drama, when Britian lamely consented to the first carve-up of what Neville Chamberlain, the Prime Minister in those days, dismissed as "a far away
1192
country"; Czechoslovakia, which we now read about every day in the press.
We British were infinitely relieved at that time when the Poles undertook to resist invasion and actually did so on that terrible Friday, 1st September 1939. We were later very grateful, many times grateful, and much heartfelt gratitude went out to the Polish air squadron in the RAF and to their families. We were also grateful for the Polish gallantry shown by those who worked in the underground resistance movement. The famous Enigma machine was one trimph of that but we were grateful to the underground resistance for all their work and for their gallant and resourceful gathering of intelligence.
All these memories come flooding back, as does a terrible day when I was in Poland 12 years ago. I went there to visit the concentration camp at Maidanek. One saw a pyramid of dust of human bones reaching about as high as the gallery on the opposite side of this Chamber and about as wide as the whole Chamber. This was surmounted by a monument. However, to think that that was simply a pile of human dust… It was just one of many memorials put up to commemorate what the Poles suffered at the hands of the enemies—enemies who we were were too frightened to stand up to until they did it first.
Today, 50 years on, I am horrified to discover—although, I suppose, one should not be surprised —that youngsters in the age group between 20 and 30 years of age already imagine that all this is just old history to many of them —indeed, old hat. It is as if it all happened in the middle ages and is of no concern to their generation. Why should they bother about the sins of their fathers when they are not interested in them in any event? I find this fact most distressing. It applies not only to people of undergraduate age who were not born at the time; it also applies to others. Indeed, I think of my own eldest son who was just alive at that time. He is now 50 years of age. So far as he is concerned what happened then really is a matter almost of indifference. Therefore what goes for him —and he is an intelligent and sensitive person —also goes for many other people in this country below the age of 50.
For years many members of the public thought that rearmament was a waste of time and trouble and as regards money it was even provocative —that is of course until the truth dawned upon them, and indeed it is dawning more and more upon them now. The truth is that not only have we had 40 years of European peace since 1945 but also the Soviets have been forced into bankruptcy by their inability to match the American arms programmes such as star wars and so on.
So we have seen the rise of Gorbachev and another wind of change is blowing. We may talk about the change of climate, but what has happened in the last two or three years, let alone the last few months, is something fabulous, while the consequences are unpredictable. After all, we are seeing the rise of Gorbachev upon the ruin of Stalinism.
The Western world is comfortably exulting in this rapidly unfolding East European story of revolution,

1193
of popular movement, aiming in general terms for a juster system and a juster, more open sort of government under the convenient label of "democratisation"; I say that this is possible as we sit back in our armchairs and read our newspapers —because of Gorbachev. Indeed, that is true. But long before Gorbachev was even heard of, there was Lech Walesa. While I am sure that we should salute Gorbachev —and, my goodness, we want him to stay in power —it is Lech Walesa who is the patron saint of East Europe's recovery because of what he accomplished with the legions of trade unionists behind him (given, as he was, great new support by the election of a Polish pope). Indeed, all these things worked together. But Lech Walesa is the man we should salute and be grateful to. If an appeal from him goes unheard and unanswered in this country, we need to hang our heads in shame.
I wonder whether words can ever be sufficient on this subject. Just the other day, thanks to my noble friend Lady Cox, I saw a video of the BBC's "State of Europe" film about Poland called "Poisoned Inheritance". I must admit that I had not the slightest idea from what I had read over the past 10 years how dreadful the situation was and how appallingly the environment itself had suffered —the ground, the air, the sky and the water. Indeed, all these things have been poisoned. It showed something of the appalling torture of a subject people —a torture of which we are mostly unaware in this country.
Let us imagine for a moment the deadly poisoning of all the rivers, of the water supply, and the deadly poisoning of the sky. It would be something unimaginable here. I recently had sight of the report of my noble friend Lady Cox concerning her last trip to Poland earlier this year. Infant mortality was then more than 44 per thousand. We are not talking about Ethiopia; we are talking about Europe. It is a part of Europe which has stood by us. Further, what about male mortality in the 55 to 59 age group? This stood at more than 180 per 1,000. I repeat, this is not Ethiopia; it is Europe. Moreover, what about TB? In this country we have forgotten about tuberculosis and TB hospitals are all closed because there is no longer any need for them. However, in Poland there is an incidence of something like 50 per 10,000. I say again, this is not Ethiopia; it is Europe.
We who enjoy ourselves in the sort of cosy comfort of freedom owe an enormous debt to Poland which we can never really speak about. We can pray it out and we can weep it out but we cannot adequately say it. It is quite unlike any debt we may be supposed to have to the third world, about which so much hypocrisy passes for wisdom and charity in the media.
An ungrateful generation is an ungracious one. An ungracious generation is one which is unworthy before the tide of history. Dare we just try to look the other way and say that we have done enough?
7.38 p.m.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: My Lords, it is most difficult for me to add much to what has already been said so very eloquently by every noble Lord
1194
and every noble Baroness who has spoken in the debate. However, I must first thank my noble friend Lady Cox for one of the most eloquent and moving speeches I have ever heard in this House. I am not speaking about a tour de force. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will listen to what my noble friend said and not just write it down as if it were something said by Cicero. What was said deserves attention.
I should like to underline but one small matter in what my noble friend said and that concerns the British Consulate in Warsaw. I have heard such stories from Polish people who have gone to get visas, and so on. It is quite difficult for us to dish out visas for Poles coming to this country as some of them are rather naughty and finish up working on buildings sites. However, I think that at the very least our diplomats and the people in the consulate could be polite. But I gather that that is not so. As I am in close contact with Polish people, I find it shameful that I should have to listen to complaints from Polish people.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, if my noble friend will give examples of that, I shall have it looked into.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend. I shall try to find examples and write to him.
I should declare an interest. I am married to a Polish lady whose family lives in Cracow and is therefore much involved in what we have been talking about. Cracow, as we have heard, is probably the most polluted city in Poland and possibly Europe. The main cause of the pollution of the atmosphere at Cracow is the proximity of the huge steel works at Nova Huta. That, in its turn, threatens the fabric of the old city of Cracow which was the ancient capital of Poland and one of the most beautiful cities in Europe. We owe it to Poland to keep that city alive because if pollution continues as it is the buildings will crumble and collapse.
I am going through my notes rather quickly because many of the things I have written down have already been said. I underline the pollution of the Vistula, which extends from end to end except possibly at its source in the mountains. In Cracow all water has to be boiled as I realised to my cost when I foolishly drank a cup of it a couple of years ago. I spoiled a few days of my holiday, but I was lucky.
There is an inadequate supply of mineral and soda water. The mineral water comes in small bottles like ginger beer bottles and consequently they are difficult to handle. That is where private enterprise might move in and introduce some bigger bottles, but many people cannot afford mineral water. The best thing to do is to bring the water back to the standard at which people can drink it.
I have a question to ask my noble friend the Minister which has not been mentioned before. I do not know whether the Government know anything about the effects on Poland of the nuclear disaster at Chernobyl. When it took place, and immediately

1195
after, disinformation was largely the order of the day in the Polish media as it had been for many years. What the authorities said, if anything, was widely mistrusted, and rumour took the place of hard news. I have heard it categorically reported in private conversations that doctors are alarmed by the increasing incidence of cancer, which they attribute to Chernobyl. A young friend of mine who lives in Warsaw has contracted cancer since the disaster. It is natural that almost every case of cancer should now be attributed to Chernobyl. Does my noble friend have any statistics on this point? Have Her Majesty's Government any plans to send medical researchers to Poland to investigate the situation? Even if people's worst fears are realised, it is better to know than to be beset by rumour which can be neither confirmed nor denied.
Last August I spent four or five days on a small farm about 35 miles south of Cracow. I stayed with nice Polish peasants. It was beautiful weather, and after I had been there for a short while I noticed attractive looking beetles going up and down the stairs and walking down the roads. They were more or less everywhere. I gathered later that they were Colorado beetles. Furthermore, after I had been there for a day or two I remarked upon the absence of birds. I was told that there used to be birds until about three years previously. They had disappeared at about the time the Colorado beetles turned up. I naturally wondered why the birds had disappeared. I was told that the crops had been sprayed with insecticide to kill the Colorado beetles. The local people seemed to be able to get their potatoes in but the treatment does not seem to have done for the beetles which are still there in large numbers; but it seems to have done for the birds.
Is my noble friend aware of that infestation? I have a feeling that it may extend over an area wider than just southern Poland, I have been a farmer, but I have no idea what methods are used to wipe out that pest. It is no longer endemic in the United States where it first appeared. It is a matter of urgency that should be looked into. It is something which Her Majesty's Government, with our efficient agriculture, could handle well and not at great cost.
I should like to underline what every other noble Lord has said and plead for Poland as a special case. We went to war to save Poland but succeeded only in saving ourselves. The vast sacrifices of the Polish nation in our common cause need no words from me. We have heard something about it today. Their reward for their steadfastness has been 50 years of foreign tyranny and an economy and environment in ruins. We owe them all the help that it is in our power to give.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for initiating this important and timely debate and for her moving speech. We congratulate her on and thank her for her enterprising missions to Poland and the help that she brought to that brave country. She has described its problems. I am sure that the
1196
Government will pay careful attention to what she and others, notably the noble Baroness, Lady Ryder of Warsaw, have said.
The historic developments which are still unfolding in Eastern Europe were discussed at length during the recent debate on the Address and I shall not go over that ground again; save to repeat that Poland was in the vanguard of the struggle for freedom and that we in the West owe the Polish people, especially Solidarity and its leader, Lech Walesa, an incalculable debt for their courage, sacrifice and determination over so many years.
Communist governments have failed dismally, as in other countries, to manage the economic, social and environmental affairs of Poland even with the slightest degree of success. It is essential that a democratically elected government should now succeed. That is why Western aid to Poland and the other East European countries which are emerging from decades of oppression should be imaginative and adequate. It is encouraging that the European Community and the United States have thus far responded promisingly. The meeting in Paris convened by President Mitterrand proposed urgent aid for Poland. As the noble Baroness stressed, the word "urgent" is important.
The meeting between President Bush and Mr. Gorbachev in Malta was also encouraging. We hope that some arrangement on a scale to meet the challenge will be announced soon. In the debate on the Address, many of us supported that idea. My noble friend Lord Callaghan and the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, both former Prime Ministers and Foreign Secretaries, advocated action on a scale to match the problem.
As the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said, the problem in Poland is huge. It includes a 35 billion dollar debt, 600 per cent. inflation and an archaic industrial base. Mr. Walesa came here to explain that to us and to ask British industry to help. He knows better than anyone that if the new Government do not deliver the goods the great adventure will run into the sand. That is the problem of Poland and all other emerging East European democracies and indeed at the end of the day of the Soviet Union itself.
The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, speaking in the debate on 22nd November said:
"Once the Polish Government have agreed an adjustment programme with the IMF, we will be ready to extend further support in priority areas, including debt rescheduling in the Paris Club".—[Official Report, 22/11/89; col. 27.]
Perhaps the Minister will say how that negotiation is proceeding.
Bilateral aid is also important. Germany has made a substantial contribution of 2.4 billion dollars. It has been said that much of the rebuilding of Eastern Europe will depend upon the Germans. I tend to agree with that. German markets can buy Polish produce; German investment can go far to renew Polish industry.
The implications are interesting, but the other Western nations, including our own, must play their part bilaterally, although perhaps not on quite the same scale as Germany. It is good to know too that

1197
Japan is to contribute about £100 million to the one billion dollars Poland has requested from the West.
Bilaterally, Britain has given various sums to improve the food supply and to the stabilisation fund and other objectives. Perhaps we could do rather better. Other countries have promised aid. This all to the good, but would not the Minister, on reflection, agree that there is the danger that the aid could become unco-ordinated and therefore less effective? As the noble Baroness said, surely something along the lines of the Marshall Plan would be suitable as advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Home, in his speech in the debate on the gracious Speech. It is becoming more urgently needed day by day.
Again, the noble Baroness is right to remind us that Poland has immense health and environmental problems. The health service has progressively deteriorated, particularly over the last decade. The noble Baroness gave graphic examples of the current problems. Medical services suffer from a shortage of equipment and medicines and from lack of staff and low pay. I understand that by East European standards, hospital provision is poor, with Poland at the bottom of the league table. It is a major tragedy and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, has brought it home to us from her own recent experience.
On the environmental side, we know that industrial development in Poland has concentrated on heavy industry. That has resulted in severe long-term environmental damage. Ten years ago Solidarity very properly placed the green issue at the top of its policy agenda. It is sad to learn that Poland's ancient forests, the great sweeps of fir, larch and birch are dying. Like the noble Baroness and the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, I saw the BBC2 programme "A Poisoned Inheritance" presented by Mr. Michael Buerk. This described the unhappy scene. The hillsides that stretch to the horizon used to be hidden under surging green forests. Now they are grey and prickled with the branchless stumps of dead trees. It is estimated that nearly 30,000 acres of forests have been destroyed and 100 million trees killed by a vortex of acid rain at the centre of Europe. The naturalists who monitor the acid rain said that by the year 2000 there will be no forests left alive in the entire region. That is a sad prospect.
I read that one-third of Poland's rivers are devoid of life and most pour into the shallow Baltic Sea. It has been officially described as, "the most endangered waterway in the world". For most of its length, the River Vistula, Poland's queen of rivers, is an industrial sewer. Urgent action is needed there and only aid from the West can help cure these problems.
No one suggests that Britain alone can solve the problems, but we can and must play an enlightened role and, if possible, a leading role in helping Poland along the road to a stable, happy and free society. The constructive proposals for a bank of Europe, agreed at the Strasbourg summit over this weekend, were another encouraging step forward. We hope that Her Majesty's Government will play a full part in this combined effort to help Poland and other East
1198
European countries towards stability in a democratic state.
7.54 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, your Lordships will be grateful to my noble friend Lady Cox for giving the House an opportunity to discuss Poland's pressing needs. It is a subject to which the Government have devoted much attention. My noble friend herself has worked unstintingly on Poland's behalf, both through Medical Aid for Poland and through the Jagiellonian Trust. Indeed, I believe that she has personally just delivered, as she told us, a further truckload of medical supplies to Poland.
My noble friend's warm reception by Solidarity representatives of both the parliament and the senate in Poland earlier this year testifies to the high esteem in which she is held by the Polish Government and the value which they attach to her support. We applaud her tremendous efforts wholeheartedly and those of other charitable organisations such as the foundation of the noble Baroness, Lady Ryder. It is clear from the comments of the noble Lords who have spoken that they share the deep concern of us all.
We greatly welcome Poland's move towards democracy and freedom. We are taking many practical steps to help the process, both bilaterally and in co-operation with our European partners.We thus demonstrate our support for reform and our determination to encourage measured change within a stable framework.
As your Lordships know, the Government announced a "know-how" fund for Poland valued at £25 million over five years during General Jaruzelski's visit to Britain in June this year. That was the first practical assistance of its kind to Poland, as many Poles gratefully acknowledged. We announced a doubling of the fund to £50 million on 29th November, before the visit to Britain of Mr. Lech Walesa, chairman of Solidarity. The purpose of the fund is to provide Poland with training and advice to support progress towards a parliamentary democracy and a market economy. Some 40 projects are already under way in various fields, including financial services and management training.
We have invited groups of Polish parliamentarians to this country to learn about democratic procedures. We intend to invite further groups in the future. We also intend to help in other areas such as the media and with the establishment of effective local government. My noble friend Lady Cox was particularly concerned about the possible use of that fund for the provision of equipment. I can tell her that there is no bar to the provision of equipment from the "know-how" fund in support of various technical assistance programmes.
As these activities get off the ground, the framework is also being laid for longer-term and more systematic help under the fund. This involves a number of exploratory missions to examine Polish requirements and make recommedations for future activities. One of the most important of these was a visit in mid-November by a high-level city team to look at the banking and financial services sector.

1199
Other missions have looked at management training, industrial restructuring (particularly in the energy sector) and the privatisation process.
In addition to the doubling of the "know-how" fund, the Government also announced a £64 million contribution to the fund set up to stabilise Poland's hard currency reserves and also a £15 million agricultural project to bring direct improvements to food supplies in Poland.
Britain is also playing its full part through the European Community, which has already responded generously with various measures which include 100 million ecus of free food for Poland, to be followed by a further tranche in 1990. We are particularly concerned that —and this was very much in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter—this second tranche should be directed at those in greatest need and the European Commission is studying how to achieve that very desirable end.
Returning to some of the items which the European Community has been putting in place, secondly, there is the 300 million ecu package for Poland and Hungary in 1990 covering areas such as agricultural reform, environmental protection and manpower/vocational training.
Thirdly, there is a substantive package of trade measures, including the abolition or suspension of all quantitative restrictions for Poland and Hungary from 1st January 1990. There is also the granting of GSP to both countries covering, inter alia, reduced tariffs and levies on agricultural products.
In total, new UK financial assistance to Poland in 1990 will exceed some 370 million dollars. We stand ready to do more, once Poland agrees an economic reform programme with the IMF. We hope an agreement will be concluded very soon, and the signs are encouraging. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, referred to that. Indeed I am told that recently there has been considerable progress in the discussions with the IMF and an agreement could be reached as early as next month.
The collective Western response, after an IMF agreement is in place will, it is clear, amount to billions of dollars, including official debt rescheduling.
My noble friend has suggested that the Government are not doing enough to meet Poland's pressing needs in the environmental and medical fields. It will be clear from my outline of the Government's extensive assistance programmes that we take a comprehensive view of Polish needs and are ready to respond quickly and generously. But let me address these two specific areas: the environment and health.
The environment remains a major concern of the Polish Government, as it is of ours. Many of the problems of course have a global dimension and we believe that international co-operation is needed to tackle them. We play a very active role in the various international bodies which deal with such issues and encourage the adoption of environmentally sound and substantial policies in Eastern European countries. And, in this respect, I would draw your Lordships' attention to the World Health
1200
Organisation European Conference on Environment and Health held in Frankfurt last week. The concluding document to that conference, to which both the UK and Poland subscribed, called on participating states to strengthen collaboration between themselves and with international organisations on mutual and transfrontier environmental problems which pose a threat to health. The UK will certainly play its full part in such collaboration.
As I mentioned before, the European Community's programme of assistance to Poland and Hungary will provide aid to the tune of 300 million ecus —some £210 million —in 1990 for assistance in various areas, one of which is environmental protection. The European Commission has already sent teams to both Poland and Hungary to assess the scale of the problem and the ways in which the European Community and other Western donors can help. The immediate challenge is for a proper scientific assessment of needs and priorities. To this end we are urging that programme resources should be allocated in particular to base-line projects such as pollution surveys and follow-up monitoring to ensure an environmentally sound base for sustainable economic aid.
High on the European Community's list of priorities are plans to improve the quality of Poland's national river, the Vistula. My noble friend Lord Belhaven and Stenton mentioned the Vistula, as did the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn. The Vistula flows for the whole of its length within Poland, and for all but a small part it is a dead and indeed poisonous river. It is a far cry from the picturesque Tatra mountains of its source. After absorbing pollution throughout Poland, it discharges it into the Baltic Sea.
The British Government have agreed to nominate experts to take part in a multilateral fact-finding visit to Poland in mid-January, following which we hope to be able to make concrete progress on cleaning up the Vistula. This is not the only problem which the Community has addressed. We are also encouraging the EC to investigate ways to improve air quality in Poland's industrial areas. These matters will be reviewed by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary at the meeting on 13th December in Brussels of Ministers of the so-called Group of 24. Again that matter was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter.
An important reason for taking so seriously the need to assist environmental protection in Poland is the damage caused by poor water supplies and particularly by air pollution to the population's health. There are disquieting reports of the effect of air pollution on life expectancy and infant mortality in Silesia. This provides a further reason for pressing on with real help in protecting Poland's environment.
Turning to my noble friend's concern about the question of medical resources in Poland, the Government are playing an important part here also. The United Kingdom has a health co-operation agreement with the Government of Poland which was signed in January 1988. Its objective is to

1201
promote the further development and extension of co-operation between the two countries in the field of medicine and public health. This is done by exchanges of information, direct contacts between institutions, exchanges of specialists and participation in conferences. These activities are agreed in detail on a two-yearly basis in plans of co-operation provided for under the agreement. The current plan concentrates on cardiac surgery, neurosurgery and transplant immunology.
Following a visit to Poland by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health in April of this year, a revised plan of co-operation is now being proposed for the period 1990–91. There are also a number of other schemes for post-graduate training of Polish doctors in the UK.
Through the "know-how" fund, approval has been given for a study to look at the feasibility of establishing a blood plasma fractionation plant in Poland. The demand for blood products in Poland is currently met either by domestic human blood donations, with the attendant risk of contamination, or imported products produced by modern fractionation processes from Western suppliers. Such imports of plasma currently cost some 15 to 18 million dollars per annum. It would clearly be a good thing if a national source could be found which would avoid that expenditure.
We also contribute in the medical field through the European Community. The Commission agreed in May this year to send emergency medical aid worth 1·4 million ecu to Poland. The aid comprises a range of medicines not currently available in the country. It also gave 100,000 ecu towards a hospital for deaf children near Warsaw. A new sizeable package of medical aid is under consideration from the 1989 budget and is likely to be announced before the end of this year.
We have received no representations to date from the Polish Government about supplies of emergency medical aid. While there are undoubtedly chronic shortages of medical supplies in Poland, a number of British and foreign charitable organisations, as well as several of our European Community partners, are active in this field. We applaud their efforts. Indeed our embassy in Warsaw has made regular contributions to my noble friend's Medical Aid For Poland Fund and also tries to support the other British-based charities active in Poland.
On the whole, however, we have preferred not to duplicate these efforts but to concentrate instead on longer-term measures such as medical training to enable the Poles to build up expertise to run an effective health service themselves.
I shall now turn to some of the other points which have been raised during the course of this debate. Two or three noble Lords, including my noble friend Lady Cox, referred to the so-called inadequacy of visa issuing facilities in Warsaw. Events are moving very fast in Poland, as everyone acknowledges, and there has been a huge increase in visa applications. There is a likelihood of yet further increases. We are increasing resources wherever possible, subject of course to the overall budgetary and accommodation constraints. New procedures were introduced in
1202
Warsaw on 1st December and I very much hope that they will result in a significant improvement in speed of service. My noble friend referred to some discourtesy that had occurred at the embassy in Warsaw. I hope that that is not the case, but if my noble friend will let me have details I shall certainly have the matter investigated.
I now turn again to the opening speech of my noble friend Lady Cox. She criticised the disparity between the number of German investments and the number of British investments. She also asked whether it would be possible to convert our debt into investments in Polish environmental programmes. We do not dispute the disparity in the investment figures, but investments must be commercial decisions for the companies concerned. However, the British Government have negotiated a favourable legal framework for such investment. We have an investment promotion and protection agreement and indeed a double taxation agreement which I hope will enable British companies to take forward some suitable programmes in Poland. Your Lordships will note that the Heads of Government meeting at the weekend approved the creation of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, one of whose aims will be to promote investment in Eastern Europe, including of course Poland.
The Government welcome the conversion of commercial debt into equity investments. Official debts are for collection action by governments within the so-called Paris Club, with which my noble friend will, I daresay, be familiar. We are certainly ready for a far-reaching rescheduling of Paris Club debts once an IMF agreement is in place. As I say, there is every prospect that that will be in place before very long.
My noble friend Lord Belhaven asked me about the problem of Colorado beetles in Poland. I have some notes on the effect of Colorado beetles upon imports of potatoes into the United Kingdom. I do not think that that was quite the point that he raised. I dare say that the answer to the problem to which he referred is that one needs to ensure that one uses the right kind of pesticide in accordance with the manufacturers' instructions. I am told that proper use of the correct pesticide is effective in the control of the Colorado beetles. I fear that that cannot have been the case if the problem persists as my noble friend described it.
My noble friend also asked about the effects of the Chernobyl disaster on Poland. We have no statistics on the effect of Chernobyl on the Polish population. However, according to a 1986 report from the Polish Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, traces of ruthenium had been detected in Poland after Chernobyl but not on a dangerous scale. Strontium had been found in even smaller quantities and the amount of plutonium had been too small to measure. The only potential problem was caesium, but the laboratory said that Poland had been much less affected than other European countries and the levels detected were not believed to represent a health hazard. I hope that at least on that score I can set my noble friend's fears at rest.

1203
I hope that your Lordships will agree that Britain has responded generously, imaginatively and quickly to Poland's needs. We are determined to stick to the task and are open to constructive suggestions as to what more we can do. Only in that way can we secure a stable and prosperous future for the people of Poland.
House adjourned at twelve minutes past eight o'clock.