§ LORD DAVIES OF LEEKMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government when a Statement will be made regarding the Report on the Channel Tunnel prepared by Rio Tinto Zinc and Situmer and whether Her Majesty's Government are aware that the rising costs and the apparent increasing incidence of accidents in tunnels throws some doubt on the value of the tunnel project as compared with serious pro- 746 posals put forward by responsible civil engineers for linking the shores of France and Britain by means of a multipurpose bridge capable of taking all types of modern vehicles and trains and with its support piers serving as a series of beacons which would increase the safety of navigation in the overcrowded English Channel.
§ THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD)My Lords, on the first part of the Question, a statement will be made as soon as possible. On the second part, the project being studied is for a rail tunnel, which is the only practicable scheme at the present time.
§ LORD DAVIES OF LEEKMy Lords, I should like to ask how soon is as soon as possible"? According to the papers, the report by Rio Tinto and Shunter is in the hands of the Department of the Environment. Secondly, the concept of a tunnel is now growing archaic. Is the noble Lord aware that throughout the world great experience has now been obtained in building safe bridges—even the one across the Yangtse for the first time in history—and, furthermore, that a mass of information has been added as a result of oil drilling in the sea? A first-class engineering project was put before the Department of the Environment, and the reply was (and here I finish) that they had studied it. The answer did not seem to indicate that they had studied it Will the noble Lord assure us that they have done so?
§ LORD DAVIES OF LEEKMy Lords, my question was: have the Department of the Environment really studied the project that was presented to them in April and May this year on the possibilities of a bridge?
§ LORD SANDFORDMy Lords, in answer to the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary question, if I had been able to tell him precisely when a statement could be made I should have done so, but I am not in a position to do so at the moment. As to the bridge, the study to which the noble Lord refers has been in my Department since April, but at the moment we have considerable 747 doubts about its economic viability, and a good deal of doubt about its technical feasibility, and it seems certain that international agreement would be required for it. Our belief is that it would add to the navigational hazards rather than diminish them.
§ LORD DAVIES OF LEEKMy Lords, while thanking the Minister for that reply may I ask whether he is aware that the bridge, with its 16 piers and beacons, would make navigation safer than ever in the Channel? Further, is he aware that we are never quite sure of a tunnel because of faultage in geological conditions?
§ LORD SANDFORDMy Lords, on the last point I would say that that is why studies have had to be so prolonged and careful. But I should certainly argue the view, which I think would be widely shared, that navigational hazards in the Channel are already great enough without this addition to them.
§ LORD GLADWYNMy Lords, is the Minister aware that in 1962—now ten years ago—I was the representative in the City of the French-led Société D'Etudes Du Pont Sur La Manche, and that we put forward a constructive plan for a bridge-tunnel bridge, similar to that which exists in the Chesapeake Bay, but it was turned down by the determined opposition of the steel interests and the railway interests? Secondly, supposing that there is any difficulty about the Channel tunnel, and supposing also that for some reason or another the idea of a bridge similar to that proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, is abandoned, would the Government nevertheless revert to the consideration of a bridge-tunnel-bridge?
§ LORD SANDFORDMy Lords, I was not fully aware of everything that the noble Lord said by way of a preliminary to his supplementary question, but I am grateful to know about it. I confirm that the bridge proposal mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, has been studied. The answer I gave him is an indication of our view of it at the moment, but this certainly does not preclude our looking at further proposals which may be put forward. In conclusion, I confirm that the only practical 748 scheme that is receiving serious study at the moment is for the rail tunnel.
§ LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURYMy Lords, does the Question put by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, mean that he is now converted and in favour of Britain's entering the Common Market?
§ LORD DAVIES OF LEEKMy Lords, I am converted to an intelligent contact with the Continent; but the Common Market as it is at the moment construed is not an intelligent activity.
§ LORD SLATERMy Lords, following the supplementary question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, giving the French position with regard to this project, will the Minister look up the records from the time when the project first received consideration in another place in regard to a tunnel or a bridge so far as the Channel project was concerned? Further, does not the Minister think that this will take us back a long way and that it would be worth having that information published in Hansard?
§ LORD SANDFORDMy Lords, I shall be delighted to look into that suggestion.
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, in view of the noble Lord's Answer that the only project receiving serious study at the moment is the rail tunnel project, will he confirm that the idea of a bridge has not been paled out? Will he also undertake that the Government will study the aspect particularly mentioned by my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek; namely, that it is arguable, and I think demonstrable in certain cases, that a bridge would make navigation safer and would not produce an increased hazard, as the noble Lord suggested?
§ LORD SANDFORDMy Lords, as I have already said, we have studied this particular proposal since April. We have come very firmly to the conclusion that it adds to the navigational hazards and I would confirm that the only scheme being given serious study at the moment is the rail tunnel.
§ LORD SHINWELLMy Lords, should not the Minister exercise a little caution in replying to questions about the Channel tunnel? Has he observed, as I have, that whenever there is a Statement 749 by the Government, or anybody representing the Government, about the practical nature of the Channel Tunnel scheme the shares rise? Is it desirable that the Government should indulge in any propaganda to help the shareholders of this company?
§ LORD DERWENTMy Lords, are not the ideas of both a tunnel and a bridge somewhat old fashioned and out-of-date?