§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ryder.]
12.16 am§ Mr. Hugh Dykes (Harrow, East)I welcome the opportunity tonight, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which was kindly fixed by your office at a late hour, to raise on the Adjournment of the House the question of the implications of Government policy on the development of the Channel tunnel. It is a subject of such continuing importance that no hon. Member would disagree with its being debated. I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to your officials who were instrumental in helping us to secure this Adjournment debate tonight. I am also grateful to the Minister for Public Transport for coming to the House at this late hour to answer some of the points that I wish to make in the time available to me.
Although this is an unusual Adjournment debate opportunity, the subject itself is not in any way unusual or esoteric. It is probably one of the most important subjects facing us in this country at present and for the next few years. I suppose that all major transport projects are in that category of importance and primordial significance for the nation, but this is the dramatic, epoch-making undertaking that we see developing in what appears to be a satisfactory way and has long since been settled in a treaty with the French, with the backing of private finance. It is a unique achievement and is much to be admired, even by those who originally believed that an element of public expenditure would also be required. This colossal exercise has been carried out with relatively great facility by the financial institutions of both countries and by the investing public.
It now appears that the two companies in the Anglo-French consortium are proceeding satisfactorily with their massive construction project. The real digging is about to take place. Although this is not a direct Government responsibility, I am sure that my hon. Friend monitors closely the progress made by the Transmanche consortium. He may, therefore, wish to refer to that aspect and say how he believes, from the British and French Governments' vantage point, the project is proceeding.
I recently visited the French end of the diggings, which was, in some ways, a historical visit. It was dramatic to see the commencement of the tunnel diggings on the French side, because, after all, the French started with the disadvantage of not having an original opening as we had from the previously aborted project. I am sure that the House will agree that the project is essential for a host of crucial reasons, particularly for this country and economically.
Perhaps I can crystallise those reasons by stating that this is a physical link to the continent. Those of us who welcome that link for a variety of reasons do not just welcome it as a transport project per se; it is a tremendously important psychological and physical link. It will be the end of this country being literally an island nation, although not of the robust aspects of our island history and tradition, but of the more positive aspects of our working as a part of an increasingly united European Community.
The project is also very important from a bilateral perspective because it brings France and Britain closer together, not simply because there will be a rail tunnel but 857 more in terms of the growing co-operation between the two Governments, no matter what the complexion of the French Government may be after the second round of the elections in a week or two. There will be growing co-operation between the two Administrations with all the things that the two countries need to do together in the EEC and other bilateral aspects.
The project is vital for the internal market in the EEC beginning in 1992 and launched by my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Young in another place. The project is a massive and dramatic development. This transport project, like other transport links that are much easier for our continental colleagues to achieve on land, is to be welcomed as part of the developing internal market. The transport and communications in that market will be almost as important as the intrinsic economic activity of manufacturing and services.
The project enhances the role of the railways. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley), I have not been content to see the railways downgraded. I do not believe that that has been the intention of Conservative Governments, but it has appeared to be the case. I am glad that the railways will have a tremendous boost and enhancement from this dramatic and exciting project.
All hon. Members are beginning to talk in the Tea Room and elsewhere about what I call the sudden congestion syndrome on overcrowded motorways. For example, the M25 is already over-full and we are talking about extra lanes for a road that was built only a few years ago. All the problems facing the major motorway networks, the A roads and the congestion in the south lead us to recognise that we must develop the railways, particularly on the crucial long distance routes, for freight and passengers.
The project will help the whole of the United Kingdom's economy. I think that I can say with confidence that it will not destroy the future of the ferries and hovercrafts. However, it will reduce their oligopolistic powers. That will be of crucial benefit to the public. I hope that a more immediate effect—and this is not part of the Adjournment debate tonight—is that the Dover dispute will be solved and that the National Union of Seamen will see the wisdom and sense of obeying the law and coming up to date with the modern practices proposed by a company that is not being oppressive in the way that the secretary of the NUS is trying to portray.
Other long-term developments will be very beneficial. Like others, I hope to see an end to duty-free goods which have provided enormous profits for the ferry operators and others, but have not been in the genuine public interest.
There are many aspects of this massive project that still cause interest and even anxiety about how it will shape up. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, although it is not a direct central Government responsibility, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to give the Government's view on how the companies are faring in the consortium and how the Government, in so far as they have a relationship with that massive construction exercise on both sides of the Channel, will respond to the overtures and requests from the consortium for the necessary Government relationship for the success of that private 858 financial project which inevitably means Government involvement in the sense of the infrastructure surrounding the first ever Channel tunnel.
The Government's commitment is important. My hon. Friend the Minister has alluded to these matters on previous occasions and we have been grateful to him for what he has said. He appears to be the champion of a considerable commitment in future for all the things that come only within the purview of public finance and Government activity. It is time for us to reinforce and enhance those utterances that will underline the Government's commitment of infrastructural money. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will help me, my hon. Friends and others about the latest thinking on the need for a high-speed rail link. My hon. Friend may recall that even in the last week there have been important allusions made to that aspect by the British representatives and directors of the Channel tunnel consortium when they said that the railway problem must be resolved, and the sooner the better. There is little time left for those crucial decisions to be made. Still no decision has been made on the British side and the French, with their TGV operation, are apparently expressing concern and asking how the British Government intend responding.
I do not want to see a situation where our image is severely and adversely dented by passengers replete with stories of gliding at high speed from Paris to Calais, and then using the excellent Channel tunnel facilities that are now being planned, only to find themselves lumbering along at a painful 45 or 50 mph journey from Dover to London because we did not sort out the problems. That is a peril and a danger that faces us unless we come to grips with the matter.
How will that high-speed rail link be devised to ensure that the British TGV equivalent syndrome train will be satisfactorily deployed between Dover and London? I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that the alternative would have a catastrophic consequence. That affects also the development of Waterloo station and how it will be linked with the planned massive property and rail head and with the new Underground station planned by British Rail at King's Cross, linking with St. Pancras. I believe that that will be the biggest single-property development in Europe—bigger, for example, than the planned development over the Quartier-Leopold station in Brussels.
That crucial question is reinforced by all the other comparisons being made with what is being spent on infrastructure by the French Government, admittedly in a development zone. We appreciate that that is a crucial difference. The French development is in a classic development zone which has suffered economic hardship, whereas ours is in the congested south-east.
I hope that my hon. Friends with constituencies in Kent, with whom we sympathise, will understand that, although they may naturally be worried about the environmental and human depredations that would come from large-scale development of high-speed rail links, and about what would happen as a result of the full development of Ashford International—which is supposed to be the future clearance centre—they cannot hold up the whole of that progress, as that would be detrimental to the interests of the rest of the United Kingdom's economy.
Also crucial is the need to ensure that we do that which the Government have been very successful at doing in other areas internally—perhaps not the elimination of 859 bureaucracy and officialdom in connection with the movement of passengers and freight through the Channel tunnel, but at least a reduction so that they are not a barrier to trade and to the progress of passenger through-trains or shuttles using the tunnel.
I recall the original research note in the Library dated 3 June 1986 in which reference was made to the Bill and to all the matters which flowed from it and to the treaty. In respect of the powers given, it made mention in paragraph 2 on page 8 of
provision being made under the Bill to make orders, subject to parliamentary consent, which would give customs, immigration and other officials who traditionally carry out checks at points of entry into the UK full powers of inspection and, as appropriate, of detention and seizure at the frontier post in France.Anxiety about drugs and recent horrific terrorist events understandably make us feel reluctant to surrender those powers. However, if there is an excess of bureaucracy and officialdom—and the union of European Customs officials must be one of the strongest unions in Europe, although various national unions are linked together—that will have a self-defeating effect on the economic movement of freight, passengers, holidaymakers and leisure travellers through the tunnel. That would be very counter-productive and would give the whole venture a bad name.I ask my hon. Friend to say what he feels will be the balance of advantages between the north and the south. I hope he will say that the tunnel will not be just a southern privilege but will have major positive effects on the northern parts of the United Kingdom's economy. With those remarks, I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to initiate this brief Adjournment debate.
§ The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. David Mitchell)It is doubly appropriate that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) should raise the subject of the Channel tunnel in this Adjournment debate. First, it is appropriate because he is a doughty supporter of the Common Market and closer European unity. There is no doubt that the tunnel will act as a great distance-shrinker and a powerful adhesive to bind together the economies of Britain and the Continent. Secondly, it is appropriate because he has chosen the right moment to invite me to take stock of progress on the Channel tunnel's construction and of the likely consequences when it opens.
My hon. Friend will, I think, be glad to know that the total value of orders on offer from the purchasing arm of the tunnel contractors, and for British Rail rolling stock, is not far short of £1,000 million. The regions, particularly Scotland and the north, have done very well in securing a major share of the orders, not least in Glasgow. I am sure that that will be warmly welcomed by many hon. Members.
Construction is now pressing ahead. The distances under the English Channel achieved by the first Beaumont tunnel, which was started by the London and South-Eastern railway, and that by the second, abortive 1973 tunnel, have both been exceeded, and drilling is progressing further out under the Channel, towards the French coast. No one need now doubt that in due course the French and British tunnels will be safely linked.
When the Channel tunnel opens for business in 1993 it will be complemented by a superb system of access roads. I think that my hon. Friend will be interested to know, as 860 no doubt will other hon. Members, just how comprehensive that access road network will be. The M20 is to be widened at Maidstone, and the gap to Ashford is to be filled. As a result, a three-lane motorway will stretch front the M25 to the mouth of the tunnel.
Sections of the M25 are being improved, and we are pressing ahead with legislation for the new Dartford-Thurrock bridge, which— like the Channel tunnel—will be a product of private enterprise. For local roads in Kent we have so far accepted six Channel tunnel-related schemes from Kent county council for transport supplementary grant. They are expected to cost £34 million in total. In that connection, it may be appropriate to pay tribute to the work done by Councillor Michael Odling, chairman of the transportation resources committee of Kent county council, who has certainly been a tough negotiator—on behalf of his county council—with my colleagues and me in the Department of Transport, making certain that Kent has fully honoured the undertakings given on ensuring that its own county programme did not suffer as a result of the urgent needs for road access to the Channel tunnel.
All in all, the business communities—large and small—and their representatives, ranging from the CBI to the Small Business Bureau, can feel fully reassured that access to the tunnel by road will be fast, safe and economic. I am glad to have the opportunity to put those facts on the record.
What about rail access? My hon. Friend raised a number of pertinent questions. I can give the House only a part of the story, but the part itself is reassuring. The Government have given British Rail approval in principle to spend £550 million—£250 million on rolling stock and about £300 million on infrastructure. British Rail is satisfied that when the tunnel opens in 1993 there will be sufficient capacity to meet the obligations that it has undertaken with SNCF.
Of course, as in so many rail operations, there will be two peaks. However, as the journey from Paris to London takes about three hours, and the journey from Brussels to London about two and three quarter hours, people catching trains on the continent between 6 am and 7 am will arrive after the peak of commuter services coming into London in the morning. In the afternoon there is more difficulty, more congestion and a greater desire by everyone to leave at the same time. However, it will be possible for British Rail, by using more than one route from London to Folkestone, to achieve what is required at the time of opening.
My hon. Friend rightly raised the question of what happens when traffic builds up. Hon. Members will know that I chaired a joint consultation committee which meets in Kent and consists of members of Kent county council, the district councils involved, the Departments of Employment, Environment and Transport together with British Rail, the Channel tunnel promoters and TML, which is carrying out the construction. This committee looks at the problems and the opportunities, and at how to maximise the opportunities for Kent and minimise the disadvantages.
The committee set up a special impact study team, which has now reported. It examined the impact of the tunnel on rail services in Kent, and it concluded that by the mid-1990s there will be no capacity between London and the tunnel for further growth in commuter traffic or for the progressive development of international services. The 861 study noted that British Rail is already engaged in a detailed assessment of options for augmenting route, seating and terminal capacity.
I have asked the board to let me have the result of its assessment in June this year. It is using outside consultants to assist in the study, and my hon. Friend will be as keenly interested as I am to see the results of that study when they are received in June. I should like to speculate on what the report might contain, but there has been enough speculation already and it might be better if we wait for the report in June and consider it on its merits. I have no doubt that the Transport 2000 conference which is taking place in York on 17 June will provide an opportunity for taking stock of the options.
I turn from the construction of the tunnel and the developments that one can foresee as being necessary to say something about the tunnel in operation, in answer to the points made by my hon. Friend. As he rightly observed, there are now limited choices for those who wish to cross the Channel. One can go by air, which is expensive. Indeed, when one compares an air fare to New York by Virgin Atlantic Airways with the air fares to some European destinations, one gets an uncomfortable feeling that liberalisation in Europe still has a long way to go in achieving for the customer the benefits of competition in air services, and Channel ferry services make it the most expensive international waterway per mile in the world.
As my hon. Friend will know, the cornerstone of the Government's transport policy is to provide choice and competition, because they are the customer's best friends, and that applies not only in a multitude of transactions in which we are customers, but to transport services.
One of the benefits of the Channel tunnel will be that those two choices of going by air or sea will become four choices. People will be able to drive down the three-lane motorway to the tunnel entrance, put their cars on a shuttle and be whisked through the tunnel in half an hour. Coaches will no doubt do the same, providing an inexpensive form of transport for many thousands of people, fanning out over the European continent, and bringing large numbers of tourists from the continent to visit many of Britain's attractions, some of which are too little known. There is still much to be done to make them known to the wider continental market.
862 Secondly, and more fundamentally, there is the direct rail link for passengers from Waterloo to the Gare du Nord in Paris, or to Brussels, and that rail link will connect into the Paris, Brussels, Amsterdam and Cologne network of high-speed trains throughout Europe.
There will be two principal categories of beneficiaries in Britain. First, there will be those who travel to the continent by shuttle and onwards by Motorail or high-speed electric trains. British Rail forecast that the number of passengers travelling through the tunnel will be between 13.4 million and 15.9 million in 1993, going up to 17.4 million to 20.8 million in 2003.
Secondly, it is in the carriage of freight that the greatest benefits will come to our economy. There will be substantial benefits to manufacturers, particularly in the north. My hon. Friend asked me about the way in which I saw such benefits coming. Nearly 65 per cent. of our exports go to the continent. It is expected that British Rail will move between 6.1 million and 7.2 million tonnes by rail in 1993, and that that will go up to between 7 million and 11.5 million tonnes by 2003.
What is fascinating is that, although there have been environmental "disbenefits", particularly in the Folkestone area, where the terminal will be located, one of the profound benefits is that once British Rail is linked into the continental rail system it will be able to compete effectively with the roads on the longer distances that rail will provide. British Rail expects that no fewer than 1,500 juggernauts a day will be taken off the roads on to the rail system, with substantial benefits for those who live alongside the roads so relieved.
I say clearly and emphatically that British exporters in the north of Britain suffer enormously from the disadvantage of distance and the Channel tunnel will be the big distance shrinker. They will be put on comparative terms when competing with their continental competitors who have land frontiers when the rail link connects all the major industrial areas of Britain to their customer areas on the continent. That is something to which we should all look forward, particularly the people in the north.
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this subject on the Adjournment, even at this late hour, and giving me the opportunity of reporting progress. I hope that he will feel pleased with the progress that I have been able to report tonight.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at. fifteen minutes to One o'clock.