HC Deb 07 June 1978 vol 951 cc191-2
23. Mr. Whitehead

asked the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has received proposing a modified version of the Channel Tunnel project.

25. Mr. Rost

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he has had further discussions with British Railways on new proposals for a direct rail link across the English Channel.

Mr. William Rodgers

I have received no proposals for a modified version of the Channel Tunnel project, nor have I had discussions with British Railways on new proposals for a direct rail link across the English Channel.

Mr. Whitehead

That reply might explain my right hon. Friend's rather lugubrious view of this exciting subject. But is he prepared to consider ideas which are current in Brussels for sharing the cost of a Channel Tunnel between railway and electricity authorities, since there must be a link built in the near future between Britain and the Continental grid which could utilise a tunnel rather than having the cables laid on the sea bed?

Mr. Rodgers

That is a fascinating proposal, of which I had not heard. I am ready to examine it. I am not ruling out the argument that there are many people who believe that a Channel Tunnel might make good sense, particularly for the railways in this country and on the Continent, not only in France. For that reason, I fully understand the wish of many to look at this more closely. No proposals have been made to me. The Government's position has not changed since the statement at the time when the previous tunnel was abandoned.

Mr. Mayhew

Will the Secretary of State make it clear now that he will not contemplate any scheme which, like the last one, provides for trains travelling at 150 m.p.h. every four minutes only 50ft. from houses in built-up areas?

Mr. Rodgers

The last proposal threatened considerable environmental damage in Kent. The present proposal which is being considered and informally discussed would avoid that danger.

Mr. Ovenden

Whatever my right hon. Friend says about the desirability of a Channel Tunnel, will he make it clear that he will have nothing to do with the idea of a roll-on-roll-off motorway which was involved in the last project and which would have caused immense environmental damage in Kent?

Mr. Rodgers

I confirm what my hon. Friend said, but I must not allow the nature of his supplementary question to lead him to believe that I am likely to make a decision. I am not considering the possibility and I do not think that this is the proper time.