HC Deb 11 June 1990 vol 174 cc3-5
3. Mr. Allen

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to provide Government financial support to ensure that any channel tunnel terminal at Stratford is linked to King's Cross.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Cecil Parkinson)

I share the hon. Gentleman's concern that all the regions should be properly served by freight and passenger services to and from the channel tunnel.

Mr. Allen

Is the Secretary of State aware that his and the Government's bungling and mismanagement threaten the high-speed link and the channel tunnel? Will he give the House an assurance that the Ove Arup proposal for a high-speed link to London will be allowed to be negotiated with British Rail, and will he join the Opposition in repealing section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987, which prevents public money from going into such schemes, at the earliest possible opportunity so that my region can benefit from 1992 and the single market?

Mr. Parkinson

In 1993 when the tunnel opens British Rail will be putting into service 3 million seats a year from the regions; 70 per cent. of all the freight going through the tunnel will come from the regions, and proper arrangements are being made. The Government are in the process of modernising and improving the railway system that the Labour Government so shamefully ignored.

Sir David Mitchell

Is not it true that what really counts is not the time taken on a journey but that the journey is faster, more comfortable and more convenient than the competition?

Mr. Parkinson

I agree with my right hon. Friend. May I point out to Opposition Members, especially the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who talks about 45 mph journeys from London to the tunnel, that trains will run at 100 mph? British freight trains run more quickly than continental freight trains, most of which are restricted to 60 mph. Will he stop giving the impression that the TGV is a freight train?

Mr. Spearing

Does the Secretary of State agree that any route from Stratford to King's Cross would be more economical if it were combined with the cross-rail which he is now considering? Does he recall that a few weeks ago he replied to a question from me asking why he would not apply the Victoria line cost-benefit analysis used by the late Mr. Ernest Marples to any part of the channel tunnel route? Will he apply the formula used by Mr. Marples for the Victoria line to any lines in London, and why does he refuse to use it for part of the channel tunnel link?

Mr. Parkinson

Because the House of Commons, in an Act passed with the full support of the Labour party, made it illegal for the Government to subsidise any fast tunnel link, on the ground that it would create unfair competition for ships, road freight and airlines. When we consider London Underground provision, we use precisely the same analysis as was used by the late Lord Marples. No underground line in London could be justified on economic grounds. The House of Commons decided that the channel tunnel link should not be subsidised, and I suspect that the hon. Gentleman voted for that clause.

Mr. Dunn

Is the Secretary of State aware that there is deep anxiety in north-west Kent and south London about the rumours that the channel tunnel rail link project might be shelved? Shelving the project will simply allow the confusion, rumour and blight to continue, with adverse effects on my constituents. Is he further aware that some people are demanding the use of taxpayers' money for a project capable of being financed by private capital? Will he continue to resist those demands?

Mr. Parkinson

Yes. My hon. Friend is saying that this is an extremely complex issue which needs careful consideration, and that is precisely what the Government are giving it. When the Government reach their decision, the House of Commons will be the first to be informed.

Mr. Prescott

Is the Secretary of State aware that if section 42 had applied to any of the existing European high-speed links, they would not have been built because they all involved public money or public guarantee? Does he accept that since both sides of the House passed the provision in section 42, the fear of unfair competition has receded due to the doubling of the cost of channel tunnel, faster ferries and congestion at our airports? That fully justifies the repeal of section 42, for which I offer the Secretary of State the fullest support. It will be essential if Britain is to have a high-speed network so that our economy can prosper in Europe.

Mr. Parkinson

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that constructive and helpful intervention. I do not wish to blight his prospects, but I thank him for that constructive suggestion. But there were good, sound reasons for section 42. We shall debate the Commission's proposals tomorrow. It is no part of its proposals that Europe's rail lines should be subsidised. The thrust of the Commission is to make Europe's railways competitive and to get rid of subsidy, and that is precisely what the Germans and others are considering now.

Mr. Batiste

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if regions such as Yorkshire are to receive the full benefit of the massive investment that has already gone into rail electrification, trains that originate in our region must have rapid transit by whatever route through London and the south-east on to the continent and that decision must be made soon so that work can begin as quickly as possible?

Mr. Parkinson

I have good news for my hon. Friend. The work has already begun. Work is in hand, huge investment is already being made and orders have been placed for the modernisation of lines, for improved rolling stock and for new freight centres. From the day the tunnel opens my hon. Friend's region and others will be properly served and will have access to all aspects of the tunnel.