HC Deb 23 February 1981 vol 999 cc645-6
13. Mr. Palmer

asked the Secretary of State for Energy why he asked the Central Electricity Generating Board to investigate an alternative cable route across the Channel for the 2,000 megawatts cross-Channel cable link; what was the cost of the survey; and who will meet it.

Mr. Norman Lamont

At the public inquiry, objectors to the proposal to site the converter station at Sellindge suggested Dungeness as an alternative. Being able to site the station there depends on the feasibility of taking the cable there from France via the Varne Bank. My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for the Environment and Energy therefore asked the CEGB to investigate the feasibility of a cable route frome Varne to Dungeness. This involved a sea bed survey.

I understand that the survey cost about £500,000. The cost is being met by the board.

Mr. Palmer

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that approval for the scheme was given by his right hon. Friend as long ago as last July, that the French are getting increasingly impatient about the delay, and that the delay is due not to the CEGB but to the objections of highly placed individuals living near the proposed site for the converter station, including the editor of The Daily Telegraph and Lord Aldington, vice-chairman of the General Electric Company, both former Members of this House? Is it not wrong that so much trouble should be taken over two objectors because they are highly placed, when the ordinary objector would not be listened to?

Mr. Lamont

The hon. Gentleman will know that my right hon. Friend has a statutory duty in this matter and, therefore, that it would be improper for me to comment on his remarks.

Sir Albert Costain

Does my hon. Friend appreciate that the statement made by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) is only half true and that, had he been at the inquiry at Sellindge on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of last week, he would have learnt that new information came to hand which was vital to any decision?

Mr. Lamont

I am afraid that my answer to my hon. Friend must be the same: we are not in a position to comment, because of the statutory position of the two Departments.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts

Will the Minister at least take the opportunity today to confirm his belief in the urgency of this proposal in terms of the additional generation that it provides for the CEGB and the further impetus for coal usage, in view of recent decisions?

Mr. Lamont

This is such an important project that the Government have to pay regard to the objections that have been raised.

Mr. Warren

Can my hon. Friend tell the House what will be the impact of delay on this project, which will be of advantage to both sides of the Channel?

Mr. Lamont

My hon. Friend is right in saying that there are considerable economic advantages in the project. However, the Government, despite seeing that clearly, and despite having given investment approval to the project, are statutorily bound to pay attention to the environmental and other objections that have been made against the scheme.