§ Mr. Rostasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will publish a detailed statement accounting for the more than threefold increase between the estimated cost of £120 million at February 1973 prices and £373 million at May 1974 prices for the proposed Channel Tunnel rail link.
§ Mr. MulleyI cannot add much to the statement by my right hon. Friend on 26th November. The former estimate was essentially based on engineering feasibility studies, whereas the latter was generally in the detail necessary for preparing parliamentary plans. In addition 655W the cost of railway construction rose substantially over the period in question and the detailed planning of new development across environmentally sensitive and built-up areas, together with a London terminal and depot, proved more expensive than had been foreseen.
§ Mr. Rostasked the Secretary of State for the Environment on what date he was presented with the revised cost estimate by British Railways of the proposed high-speed Channel Tunnel rail link; and on what date he requested British Railways to examine a range of lower-cost options.
§ Mr. John Mooreasked the Secretary of State for the Environment, with reference to his statement on 26th November, on what date British Rail's estimates of a revised cost for the high-speed link were presented to the Government for their examination.
§ Mr. MulleyThe revised estimate is based on an interim report which I received from the Railways Board in September. This report indicated that, in view of the rising cost, the board was giving preliminary consideration to a lower cost strategy, in which I felt it prudent to encourage the board. It was not, of course, asked to abandon the previous project in favour of a range of alternative options until my right hon. Friend made his statement.