HL Deb 25 February 1976 vol 368 cc699-702

2.56 p.m.

Lord DAVIES of LEEK

My 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, in view of the technical advances which have resulted from the building of oil rigs capable of withstanding rough seas, and the limited economic value of the Channel tunnel project, they will initiate research in the Common Market countries into the possible benefits of a six-lane Channel bridge for road and rail traffic.

Baroness STEDMAN

My Lords, studies have already shown that a bridge project would be considerably more expensive than a tunnel, without producing a comparable return. It would also be a potential hazard to shipping and be subject to damage in bad weather.

Lord DAVIES of LEEK

My Lords, despite the charming and inaccurate Answer of my noble friend, is it not correct that no proof has ever been given that a bridge will be a hazard to shipping? In fact, it is estimated that it will aid shipping. Also, is my noble friend aware that in Europe there is now a need to develop a link—and quite substantial well-informed opinion considers that a bridge would be a much more economic link between the Continent and Britain—without having the ecological and environmental hazards that a tunnel would create?

Baroness STEDMAN

My Lords, the studies which the Department carried out showed that a bridge would be much more expensive to build than a tunnel, and there would also be considerable difficulties with navigation. I think my noble friend is perhaps under the misapprehension that the oil rig technique might be used for building some kind of road bridge across the Channel, but I am assured by my advisers that this is not so. The construction technique for oil rigs and oil platforms does not lend itself to the construction of a bridge which would carry road traffic across the Channel.

The EARL of HALSBURY

My Lords, will the noble Baroness give an undertaking that her Department will not forget the compromise suggestion, made by various civil engineers, of a series of linked self-ventilating tunnels, islands and bridges which would carry a self-ventilating system across the Channel?

Baroness STEDMAN

My Lords, in the present economic climate, we have no money to consider any of these schemes. But I will certainly remind my colleagues in the Department of the suggestions which have been made.

Lord GLADWYN

My Lords, will the Government recall that for about six years I represented the French Channel Bridge Company in this country, and that we were finally defeated by the opposition of the shipping interests which maintained that, infallibly, a bridge would be run into by shipping, and that therefore disaster would ensue? But do not the Government feel that in present conditions, with the advantage of modern technology, that opposition is not, in itself, necessarily valid?

Baroness STEDMAN

My Lords, that may be so, but in the present economic climate we are not able to give any assurance about tunnels or bridges.

Lord DAVIES of LEEK

Finally, my Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether she is aware that no one is asking the Government to spend money now, but to take some initiative in studying in depth this problem of the bridge and to do something with the £20 million of Channel Tunnel assets?

Baroness STEDMAN

My Lords, I will certainly convey my noble friend's views to the members of the Department.

Lord COLERAINE

My Lords, is there not another consideration? If and when some link is created, will not a tunnel have considerable advantages over a bridge in the field of defence, inasmuch as a tunnel is more easily defended and less easily destroyed?

Baroness STEDMAN

My Lords, I think that the original suggestion was that the tunnel would be the best means of bridging the Channel, if that is not too much of a colloquialism. At the present moment we have had neither firm commitments nor firm overtures about it from our European colleagues. We would certainly look at such a suggestion if it came from them, but at the moment we cannot commit any of our very meagre resources to that end.

Lord COLERAINE

My Lords, will not the noble Baroness agree that our defence is an element in the consideration of the problem?

Baroness STEDMAN

Yes, my Lords.

Viscount ST. DAVIDS

My Lords, is the noble Baroness wholly aware of the fact that such bridges are a very considerable danger to navigation? Is she aware that several such bridges which have been built over navigations have already been run into and brought to destruction by collision with vessels, including one which would interest the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, in that it was a bridge over the Severn?

Baroness STEDMAN

My Lords, that is why the Government originally opted for the tunnel rather than for the bridge.

Lord ORR-EWING

My Lords, will the noble Baroness bear in mind that the building of the Channel tunnel was to be financed from private sources? It was not to be publicly financed. If the noble Baroness persists in saying that there is a shortage of public finance, will she bear in mind that page 142 of the Government White Paper on Public Expenditure lists the expenditure on the nationalisation of projects both this year and in the coming year at £2,200 million? Many of us can think of far more productive ways of spending money than that.

Baroness STEDMAN

My Lords, I think that is another question. Certainly the Government have no knowledge of any firm proposal for the revival of either the tunnel or the bridge project using private resources.

Lord WIGG

My Lords, will the noble Baroness bear in mind that, if she is looking for new resources to be liberated along the lines of the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, she could with advantage add to them the cost of the Metrication Board, which is a complete waste of time?

Lord ORR-EWING

My Lords, will—

Several Noble Lords

Order, order!

Lord ORR-EWING

My Lords, under the Addison Rules I am prevented from replying to that provocative statement!