HC Deb 12 November 1973 vol 864 cc203-10

Before £20 million has been spent under the guarantee under section 1 of this Act a Select Committee of the House of Commons shall be appointed to examine the progress of the project.—[Mr. Sheldon.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Sheldon

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The clause should command the support of all hon. Members and be accepted by the Government.

The Minister condemned the Labour Government for their change of heart over the plans they left behind. It is not for me to defend the previous Government when I was a critic. The present Government do not go through with the project to fruition. It is perfectly acceptable for any Government who cannot see a project through to the end to accept some degree of House of Commons control. I do not find it deplorable that a party, having initiated such a project and seen another Government continue it, should then say that a Select Committee should examine it. That is to exercise the necessary degree of control.

12.30 a.m.

Large-scale projects cannot be left to alternating Governments to continue themselves. That is to hand over too much of the decision making to the only continuous part of the Government machine—the permanent officials. There may well be half a dozen or more Ministers during the lifetime of the scheme. Therefore, the continuity that the House would wish must be found by other means. I want to see that continuity coming from the Government, the Department and the House. The main force must be the Government, and their instrument must be the Department, but to achieve continuity and a bipartisan policy the House must be slotted into the discussions and debates.

Long-term proposals involving the expenditure of large sums call for new methods of control, including control by the House. One is the use of the Select Committee procedure. It is not the only one; other bodies could inquire into such matters. But we are at an experimental stage of our examination of such projects. The advantage of the Select Committee system is that it enables changes to be made in the composition and possibly the terms of reference to the Committee, so that a close and continuous control may be kept of the expenditure of the sums involved.

If Governments had taken more people into their confidence they would have achieved a greater measure of trust and other methods of operation might have been possible, but now it is a bit late in the day for that. The only solution acceptable to the House is a Select Committee. It could go into such questions as the operation of the Channel ferries, finding out the basis of their costings in a way that the Government had not done. I do not think Governments know.

I do not think that the Minister knows by how much the cost of ferries could be reduced as a result of intense competition. But, as the Monopolies Commission is reporting, he may well feel that there is no great need to examine this matter now, and I would not blame him for that. There is a number of factors, however, which the Select Committee could take into account. I should dearly like to see carried out an examination of the sub-group and the structure and confidence it might engender in those who decide to let it take over the main construction work of the tunnel.

It is a great pity that the Minister did not give this proposal the welcome it deserved. It is something we shall have to have in future projects of this kind; and it may well be that the tame acquiescence which has been achieved in some projects will not be so easily obtainable, given one or two possible failures which may yet occur because we have not learned how to organise them.

Mr. Warren

The new clause is a late starter. In fact, it is far too late a starter to produce the management standards required of such an enormous project as the Channel Tunnel. The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) said that what was required was to exercise a degree of control over the project commensurate with its magnitude. That would be to look only superficially at the problem, because the key to the success of this project lies in the standard of project management deployed from the start. To wait for £20 million to be spent before setting up a Select Committee would do nothing other than to give an observation point from which one could see what was going on without any executive control over the project. When £20 million has been spent, probably £100 million is already committed. It is then too late.

I am concerned that we have heard nothing about the type of management which will be involved in the project. When the Americans went for the United States Navy Polaris programme, they set up a parallel programme which produced a whole project management system to make sure that the Polaris programme was completed on time to the cost schedule required and to meet the targets. This project system has since been used repeatedly in the United States and to a certain extent in this country. I hope that the Government will look on this project as demanding a new revolution in management planning techniques.

It would be of immense benefit to find such a management scheme. In the 1950s we talked in terms of tens of millions of pounds. In the 1960s we talked in terms of hundreds of millions of pounds. Now we are discussing a project cost bordering on £1,000 million. But our management standards and techniques have not moved forward at the same rate. That causes me considerable concern. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will say that the money involved in this project will be controlled in such a way that the House of Commons does not have to wait for a Select Committee but will have a continuous, clear, visible plan before it against which it can measure the progress made.

Finally, with the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne leaving the Chamber, I should like to say that we are faced with the most extraordinary sight: we have no Opposition before us. Even when the hon. Member returns into the House, he is unaccompanied by any member of his own Front Bench to support him.

Mr. Moate

It is encouraging to hear from the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) that the Polaris programme met its targets. That is a good example for our own defence sector, if not for hopes of proper control over public spending.

I do not think the hon. Member's suggestion that a Select Committee would be too late is correct, because the philosophy of phase 2 is that it is an exploratory phase and one which should give time for further re-examination and, if necessary, time to pause and think again. That is presumably the object of it. It is quite logical also that half way through that phase, when £20 million has been expended, the House should examine the whole project in the light of the work which has been done and of the figures which had been made available. A Select Committee would be an effective way of probing some of the facts and figures we have been given.

I suggest to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that there is a way of accommodating the genuine desire for parliamentary scrutiny without in any way harming the Bill, if it is passed, and without in any way slowing down the project. One could proceed to phase 2, have the Bill and at the same time, without delaying the project, establish a Select Committee to examine the fundamentals, principles and costs, as opposed to the type of Select Committee one gets with a Hybrid Bill, which is an altogether different animal. The Select Committee could be set up concurrently with the work being done under phase 2. The same argument applies to a public inquiry.

These are genuine demands for information and scrutiny. It may well be that the answers would satisfy all the critics and that a Select Committee would show the figures to be correct and the project to be rightly based. For people such as myself who have two views about the project—I am in favour of a railway-only tunnel; I have my doubts about this tunnel—a Select Committee might provide the answers to satisfy both sides of the House and the critics. This could be achieved at the same time as phase 2 was under way.

I ask my hon. Friend sincerely to give thought to how he can satisfy this genuine parliamentary demand for proper scrutiny of the project.

Mr. Speed

The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) said earlier that we thought the new clause was deplorable and we deplored the idea that we might have a Select Committee of the kind that is proposed. I assure him that I do not think it is deplorable and I understand some of the concerns he has expressed, as I understand those of my hon. Friends the Members for Hastings (Mr. Warren) and Faversham (Mr. Moate).

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings that we are moving here into management fields that demand great expertise and skill, although, when he speaks of our being nearly into 1974 and of this being a great new engineering project costing more than £1,000 million, I must remind him that during the last 10 years or so there have been many projects in different parts of the world of comparable size and nature and in some ways of rather more advanced technologies than in the case of this project.

As for project management, as far as the United Kingdom is concerned RTZ Development Enterprises has a record second to none in many of these directions. I am sure my hon. Friend was not suggesting that it would be inadequate for management control.

Mr. Warren

Naturally, I would not cast any imputations on that excellent company. Where the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) and I have sympathy for each other on the subject of project management, however, is that there is not clear evidence from past records of projects of this magnitude anywhere in the world that cost and time control have been effectively managed. That was the danger on which I was commenting.

Mr. Speed

That is one of the reasons why the risk capital element is important and one of the reasons why paragraph 11.7 in the White Paper, which no doubt my hon. Friend has read, is also important, because there are considerable financial advantages in having efficient and expeditious management of the scheme.

12.45 a.m.

Mr. Moate

If the risk element is so important, why is it only expected that these sources will contribute in phase 2? Why is it not demanded that they should contribute?

Mr. Speed

We have been through this already earlier this evening. It will be anything up to 30 per cent., as has been explained, under phase 2, and if we can get the Bill enacted and the agreement signed my hon. Friend will see considerable payments of this money coming forward. We expect that it will be up to £8 million.

I want to deal with the new clause, which has nothing to do with the argument that we have been having. As my right hon. Friend suggested in the Second Reading debate, it might be advantageous for the Governments of the two countries to run this project and have no risk capital. When we have spent £20 million it would be advantageous and desirable, and it would give us all the control that my hon. Friend seeks, to have this Select Committee.

As the Committee knows, very shortly there will be brought before the House this major Hybrid Bill, in which we shall seek the powers needed for the construction, financing and operation of the tunnel. This will be subject to the normal procedures of the House, including detailed examination in Select Committee of those aspects affecting private rights and interests and in Standing Committee of the general provisions of the Bill.

I must emphasise that the way in which some hon. Members have spoken would indicate that virtually no information has been given and that this has been sprung upon the House without warning. In fact, we have had a debate on the White Paper, we have had this debate, and there are to be the debates on the major Bill. There have been stacks of documents and as my right hon. Friend has made clear, localy authorities and local people in Kent—who, I agree, have a legitimate interest in this matter—are to be constantly informed on the progress of the scheme.

As for the work to be carried out during phase 2—a matter that is germane to the new clause—this, together with a basic breakdown of the budget, will be set out in agreement No. 2, to be published with the treaty early next week. The main item is the construction of sloping access adits on both the British and French sides and the driving of some 2 km. of the service tunnel on each side. There will also be surveys and studies of conditions below ground, design projects and the preparation of the main works and, in addition, the updating of the economic and financial studies.

A vast amount of work has already been undertaken and its results published. We now have these mountains of documents in various libraries in the land, and the House and its Committees have and will have the benefit of these and of the various studies, as they emerge under phase 2, of the preliminary works and the results. There is no question of our hiding our light under a bushel, or hiding vast amounts of information. In the near future a basic breakdown of the works and the budget itself will be published.

I cannot accept the criticism made by the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne that, because Ministers sometimes came and went and Governments come and go whereas civil servants stay, we constantly need Select Committees to keep an eye on the project. It so happens that my right hon. Friend has now been Minister for three and a half years. Nevertheless, it is a pretty poor opinion of Ministers to suggest that if my right hon. Friend went to another position anybody else would therefore be immediately all at sea and that we would have to sort out the position by way of a Select Committee.

If, after the expenditure of £20 million, Governments did not keep the House fully in the picture, and if the House were not kept in the picture as a result of these studies, there would be considerable force in what the hon. Member says, but that is not the case. I repeat—if the Committee needs any further assurances—that as these studies go forward under phase 2 we shall keep not only the House but the country, and local people who have legitimate fears and problems, very fully in the picture, so that they can see exactly what is happening.

I must also remind the Committee, as I have reminded it on a number of occasions tonight, that this project can be broken off at any time by any of the four parties. Therefore, as I said on Second Reading, there is no irrevocable commitment—and this must be stressed again and again. I do not believe that our normal procedures in this Parliament are inadequate and, in view of the assurances that the Government have given about keeping everyone informed, I do not see any advantage in the appointment of an additional Select Committee of the sort that is proposed. I can certainly assure this Committee that, with the Hybrid Bill shortly coming before the House, many of us will be deeply involved in all these questions for a considerable time to come.

Question put and negatived.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.