§ 2.35 p.m.
§ LORD MERRIVALEMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government, following submission of the Channel Tunnel Study Group Report and their further proposals of July, 1960, if discussions have taken place with the French Government on the financial implications involved and on the economic benefits that could be derived from such a project, and in particular whether:
- (a) any agreement has been reached concerning liability under head lease arrangements entered into by both Governments;
- (b) ally agreement has been reached with regard to the "earmarking" of that proportion of the necessary private capital which would have to be raised in each country for such a project;
- (c) any policy announcement can be made.]
§ THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM)My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have given close study to the proposals of the Channel Tunnel Study Group and are in touch with the French Government on the subject. I regret that I can say no more than that at present.
§ LORD MERRIVALEMy Lords, whilst thanking my noble friend for his lengthy answer, I would ask him how is it that, Her Majesty's Government having contacted the French Government in January of this year and said 710 that they were sending over for discussions a Permanent Secretary of the Treasury, there have not yet been discussions between the Treasury official and the Ministre de Finance? Does he not consider that it is time that his right honourable friend and the French Minister of Transport, M. Buron, discussed this matter at some length, because I believe that the last time it was discussed was in October last year at the Hague?
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, my noble friend is evidently working on sources of information of his own which I am not privileged to share, and therefore I am not able to comment on what he says. I think that I should tell him that these matters are being arranged through diplomatic channels, and therefore I am unable to say any thing further at present about the state of consultations. As regards the desirability of a meeting of the Ministers concerned, I do not think it is for me to pronounce on that, because that would naturally be embraced in the negotiations through the diplomatic channels which I mentioned.
§ THE EARL OF SWINTONMy Lords, while having no information, official or unofficial, on this matter, may I ask the Minister whether he would give an assurance that this Government, with all their financial liabilities in front of them, will not enter into any financial undertakings in regard to this matter without the approval of Parliament?
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, I scarcely find myself in a position to produce an assurance of that kind. I think I had better say again to my noble friend that there are many far-reaching aspects of this matter which have equally seriously to be considered and which I think Her Majesty's Government and the French Government would have to keep in mind in the course of their consultations.
§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHMy Lords, would it not be better if some Government statement could be made fairly soon? I very much support the query of the noble Earl, Lord Swinton. The shares of this company seem to have fluctuated between 5d. and 57s. in the course of about five years and it seems to me that generally 711 we are in an extraordinary sort of position. Could not something be done to settle this matter once and for all?
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, I take it that the noble Viscount is referring to the Channel Tunnel Company. I think that what the noble Viscount says is quite right; I think that a decision is required. But no unilateral decision can be made in this matter and, as I have said, there are many wide and deep aspects which require consideration by both Governments together. We are in touch with the French Government and no doubt progress will be made as best it can.
§ LORD KILLEARNMy Lords, before my noble friend sits down, may I ask this question? Before the Government commit themselves on this very important question of a Channel Tunnel, I presume that Parliament will be given an opportunity to consider it.
§ THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM)My Lords, perhaps I should answer that. My understanding is that all matters which carry financial commitments cannot be undertaken by any Government without Parliamentary approval.
§ LORD KILLEARNMy Lords, I was not referring to the financial side so much as to the political.
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAMI think the question of my noble friend Lord Swinton was largely a question of finance. The tunnel cannot be built without money, and public money cannot be made available without being voted by Parliament. That is my understanding of it.
§ LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETHMy Lords, surely the noble Viscount will be aware that the content of the question put by the noble Lord on the Cross Benches is whether, in view of security, defence and other considerations involved—on which I am not pronouncing—the Government should not take steps to get an idea of Parliamentary opinion by way of debate before they enter into a commitment to support the tunnel? That is a prior question to the question of finance.
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAMMy Lords, there is nothing to stop a debate in 712 your Lordships' House, but I do not think there is any occasion for it at the moment.
§ LORD MERRIVALEMy Lords, may I ask one supplementary question, as my noble friend referred to unofficial information? As I see my noble friends Lord Home and Lord Dundee on the Front Bench, would he not consult with them to see whether it is not a fact that the British Government did say that Sir Frank Lee would be going over to consult with the Ministre de Finance last January?
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, I can only repeat what I have said—namely, that my noble friend has sources of information which I do not share. I am prepared to be reasonable and will look into any suggestion.