§ 2.37 p.m.
VISCOUNT DE L'ISLEMy 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 whether, following the talks between the Prime Minister and the President of the French Republic, the Channel Tunnel project is to be postponed sine die or abandoned.
§ THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHEPHERD)Neither, my Lords. The two Governments will be reviewing the 2142 programme for Phase III of the project in the light of developments in the economic situation and capital markets and will take account of that review in reaching their decision next year on the future of the project, and in any negotiations for the proposed Agreement No. 3.
VISCOUNT DE L'ISLEMy Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his courteous reply to my Question, may I further ask him whether, before we contemplate the infliction of massive damage on a large number of people in Kent and Surrey—should the proposed rail link route be incorporated in an Act of Parliament in the next Session—it would not be better to accept now that a commitment to the vast expenditure of national resources on the Channel Tunnel project is totally unrealistic in our times of incessant inflation and increasing dependence on foreign borrowing? Would it not be better to abandon the whole project before such damage is inflicted and before possibly nugatory expenditure—should the route be so incorporated—is committed from the public purse?
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, I could not accept that. Parliament, by Motions in both Houses, and also by the passing of earlier legislation, has accepted the view that the Channel Tunnel has long-term economic advantages to this country. However, we need to consider various implications before we finally sign Agreement No. 3, and here we will have to take into account the economic consequences and also the state of the capital market. But I am sure it would be the wish of Parliament that the Channel Tunnel should proceed.
§ LORD DAVIES OF LEEKMy Lords, is my noble friend aware that, time and time again, when this issue was brought before this House we were not supplied with all the facts on these studies? Also, when ultimately the House agreed reluctantly to a preliminary exploration of the geological possibilities of building the Channel Tunnel, we were given to understand that before they went further a report would be made to this House? Are we still sure that before any major project goes forward the preliminary surveys, with the geological and financial analyses, will be presented to both Houses of Parliament?
§ LORD SHEPHERDYes, my Lords.