I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this, it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 3 to 6.

It may be helpful if I sketch the background to this new clause. The Select Committee's concern was to embody in the Bill the commitment in article 1(1) of the treaty that the tunnel should be built without recourse to Government funds or Government guarantees of a financial or commercial nature. As a result, the Select Committee inserted what is now clause 2 into the Bill. It was also concerned about the danger that Government funds might percolate through to Eurotunnel via British Rail. In the Select Committee, a number of hon. Members expressed anxiety on that point, in particular that British Rail might make advance toll payments to the concessionaires, with the benefit of funds provided by the Government. In response, the Government undertook to require British Rail to omit any provision for advance toll payments from the final usage contract and to examine further the whole question.

The issue was again raised in Standing Committee when concern was expressed about the possibility of Government funds reaching the concessionaires by the back door. I said then that the Government's firm intention was that British Rail's services through the tunnel should not attract any of the Government grants for railway support and that we were currently considering whether specific provision to that effect should be made in clause 2. The references are to be found in columns 176 and 177 of the Official Report. New Clause I meets that commitment.

Our objective is to ensure that British Rail does not serve as a channel for Government funds to be provided to Eurotunnel. There need be no ban on British Rail investment in Eurotunnel, whether by advance toll payments or otherwise, provided that we can be completely satisfied that such investment does not represent indirect Government funding, and this will be made clear to British Rail. The amendment deals unambiguously with the point by blocking any risk of leakage of Government funds into Eurotunnel. Therefore I am confident that we have now closed the loophole that was rightly worrying members of both the Select Committee and the Standing Committee.

The amendments that we are considering at the same time as new clause I are technical amendments to close loopholes and to provide clear remedies for breach of the provision that there shall be no recourse by the concessionaires to Government funds or Government guarantees of a financial or commercial nature.

I said in Committee that the lawyers were crawling over clause 2. They have now finished crawling, and amendments Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 are the result. 1 should be happy to explain them in detail to the House, if it is felt that that would be helpful.

The Opposition do not disagree with the Government about the new clause. The Minister of State will be aware that the Opposition were anxious in Committee that there should be even-handed treatment of the concessionaires and those already providing cross-Channel services.

The Minister said that advance toll payments will not be allowed. I understand that British Rail could receive advantageous terms from the concessionaires, provided that the toll payments were made in advance. Therefore, it will be a little hard on British Rail if it is to be prevented from taking advantage of those terms.

I understand that the other amendments arise directly from the provisions of this new clause, but does the Minister think that it is perfectly fair and reasonable for British Rail not to be able to engage in a little commercial practice that would benefit the taxpayers and show the public sector in a good light?

This Government in general and the Department of Transport in particular want British Rail to be run in a businesslike manner. This is neither the time nor the place for the Opposition to point out the flaws in the Government's detailed approach, but I should be grateful if the Minister could say whether compensation is to be provided for British Rail if it is to be deprived of this commercial advantage. I stress that the Opposition would not like that advantage to be used to the detriment of those who will continue to be competitors of British Rail in the cross-Channel business.

Every hon. Member will welcome the new clause, because it blocks a possible subsidy loophole. It demonstrates the determination of Her Majesty's Government to honour the commitment that no public funding should be provided and that no guarantees should be offered that would be the equivalent of a loan. The basic commitment of clause 2 on funding is clear and precise. We should be grateful that, when a loophole was discovered, the Government took speedy action to deal with it and to write this provision into the Bill.

I doubt, however, whether the new clause will stick. My fear is that the firm resolve of the Government, which I do not doubt in any way, might be overturned by the direct funding of the railways from European Community institutions. European laws and decisions take precedence over the decisions of this Government and over our laws, as the 1972 Act makes clear.

I am wondering whether the clause could be adjusted in another place to prevent the promoters from seeking comparable funding, as described in new clause 1, by the back door from the European Community. That is not silly scaremongering. Only this week we saw an example of the way in which clause 2 has been undermined. It provides absolutely clearly that there should be no loans from public funds. However, only a couple of days ago—I am afraid that it was not widely reported—there was the astonishing revelation that the European Investment Bank is apparently in negotiations with the promoters for a soft loan of £1 billion for the tunnel. Quite frankly, if that agreement is concluded it will drive a coach and horses through the Government's pledge of no public funding.

In no sense is the European Investment Bank a commercial bank. Its directors are the Finance Ministers of member states. They get their cash either from loans guaranteed by member states or from direct payments from member states. It was interesting that when the Chancellor announced the autumn statement on public spending he explained that one of the reasons why our contribution to the EEC this year was being increased by £440 million was due to an extra payment to the European Investment Bank. Therefore, the bank obtains its cash from Government, or by raising loans from Government.

1 am grateful to my hon. Friend giving way. He will be aware that the European Investment Bank provided a soft loan for the original Dartford tunnel that links his county with mine. Is he, therefore, against that loan and that tunnel?

That was not bound by the treaty and was one of the means by which we retained some of the money for payments that have been made. My hon. Friend will accept that this issue is rather different in that, because of the competition with ferries, there is a firm pledge of no Government funding.

Is it not true that, over the years, the European Investment Bank has lent money for projects such as the airbus, which is causing a little controversy at the moment? Does the hon. Gentleman think that it is fair that he can fly off to the vineyards of southern France—I am sure that he might do so occasionally—on an airbus, some of the finance for which has been provided by the European Investment Bank, but deny that bank the right to invest in a project such as this?

I know that people such as the hon. Gentleman would like to have Government funding and subsidies all over the place. They would like to have a lot more public spending and subsidies for everything in the world. We accept that that is the Labour party's view. However, we are considering a Bill in which the Government have made it abundantly clear that they are not allowing any public funding. The point is that this would be public funding. Could it be described as simply a commercial loan?

I draw the Government's attention to their own information document called "Sources of Information on the European Community", which states on page 117 that the loans given by the EIB are medium term, generally from seven to 12 years, and are,

"at an attractive fixed rate of Interest."

In other words, the loans have a subsidised fixed rate of interest. Of course, those loans have been concluded not by the Government, but by the European Investment Bank, of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a director. That shows that, despite the pledge given in clause 2, public money is already being negotiated to finance the Channel tunnel. The Government may say that they can do nothing about that. However, it is explained quite clearly in the pamphlet that if a loan is given by the European Investment Bank national Governments are obliged to guarantee it against exchange losses. That means that the Government would have to make a direct payment towards any possible financial losses stemming from that.

I am not in any sense accusing the Government of doing that, because the honour and integrity of the Government are absolutely clear—[Interruption.] I am sure that hon. Members will accept that when the Government say that there is to be no public funding they mean that there is to be no public funding. I doubt whether anybody would question that, and the fact that the new clause has been tabled is a sign of the Government's goodwill. However, despite the clear commitment that there should be no public funding, it seems that there is to be public funding from European sources with a subsidised loan of £1 billion, presumably because the promoters will find difficulty in getting that money elsewhere.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Is he aware that to lend money to projects that link one or more European countries is entirely in line with the general policy of the European Investment Bank? I appreciate the other line of my hon. Friend's argument, but does he accept that if such lending was denied to this project, Britain would be put at a continuing disadvantage in relation to our competitors in Europe?

I accept everything that my hon. Friend has said. I was pointing out simply that the tunnel is not a normal project because it will be in direct competition with the commercially operated ferries. Therefore, because of the danger of unfair competition, the Government have said that there should be no public funding, and no secret, direct or indirect subsidies. However, despite the fact that the Government said that in fairness to the ferry operators, whose jobs and futures will be at risk if there is subsidised competition, it appears that the tunnel is getting that subsidised help, not because of the Government's actions., but because of the actions of a European Community institution over which we have no direct control. It will be very unfair to the ferry operators if the tunnel gets cheap, subsidised loans from the European Investment Bank which gets its funds from the British Government. It will be monstrous if the Government are to be obliged, whether they like it or not, to provide direct finance for any exchange rate losses.

My comments have not been directly concerned with new clause 1, which states that we are blocking the loophole of assistance to British Rail for international projects. As we have had one clear and specific example of cheap loans of £1 billion going to the tunnel from public funding, which goes right against the message and commitment of clause 2, is there not a danger that exactly the same thing could happen with the new clause in that assistance could be given to the railway companies, perhaps from the social fund—I doubt whether it would come from the regional fund, but one never knows how such things could be operated— but certainly from another part of European funding?

However, there is one way in which we could avoid that. It could not be done by depriving the European institutions of their rights, because those rights exist, and, of course, are superior to any law of this land. However, surely we can place an obligation on the promoters not to seek any special assistance by way of funding or subsidy from the institutions of the European Community.

I welcome what the Government are trying to do. In this clause they make it clear that when they see a loophole in national funding arrangements they take immediate and effective action to stop it. However, as I regard the tunnel as being not a very viable economic enterprise and as it seems possible, if not likely, that the promoters will run out of money when it has been half built and unlikely that private investors will put sufficient money into it to make it a viable proposition, is there not a great danger in leaving the enormous loophole of European Community funding through guarantees or loans? The one way in which we could avoid that would be for the Government to consider, perhaps in another place, adjusting the new clause to put a statutory obligation on the promoters not to seek special subsidies or funds from the European Community which the Government have rightly said they will not allow the promoters to obtain from Her Majesty's Government or from the Treasury.

I should also like the Government to state whether they will be obliged, under law, whether they like it or not, to make a straight payment to the operators through the funding of possible exchange rate losses on that massive European Investment Bank loan.

The new clause is well intentioned and the amendments accompanying it tighten the loophole that existed in the Bill.

I should like to make two short points. The first is in connection with amendment No. 4, which leaves out the words "guarantees of any description". As a man who is in favour of tightening loopholes, I am a little nervous about why the words "of any description" should be deleted from the Bill and merely the word "guarantees" inserted instead. I see at least the possibility of a clever City financier being able to find a guarantee, other than that contained in the clause as amended.

A point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) has taken on a new importance as a result of a press release issued by Eurotunnel about how hard it is working to secure a £1 billion loan from the European Investment Bank. It is surprising to learn that it is trying to secure that new loan. Those of us who have long memories recall that, about nine months ago, Lord Pennock, in a rather ill-judged address on "The World at One" to Mr. Robin Day and his solicitors, advised all Members of Parliament to stop mucking around with the Bill. His justification was that he had banks all over the world to lend him money. Indeed, to give him his due, the Eurotunnel prospectus lists 40 banks from diverse Arabian, Japanese and African sources which are willing to provide £4 billion-worth of loans.

Lo and behold, times are getting difficult at Eurotunnel and we all know that. The various directors are lurching around: Lord Pennock is threatening to quit and Sir Nigel Broakes is up one minute, disenchanted the next and returns two days later. Clearly, there is turmoil and "crisis", to use the adjective on the front page of today's Daily Telegraph. Therefore, we understand that Eurotunnel is not shipshape and ready for action.

To borrow an additional £1 billion is most extraordinary. Above all, I should like the Minister to say from the Dispatch Box that, wherever else Eurotunnel finds £1 billion, it cannot be from a source which is prohibited by the treaty. The treaty makes it clear that no Government or public funds of any sort may be used for the project. The Bill and the concession agreement also make that clear. Therefore, the notion that Eurotunnel has studied the documents so little that it can even try to negotiate a £1 billion loan from a prohibited source strikes me as yet another example of the doubtful competence of its management.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is shameful for Eurotunnel to put huge advertisements in newspapers, saying:

"it won't cost the taxpayer a penny. The whole project will be financed by private investment",

when at the same time it is negotiating a loan of £1 billion from the EIB, which is public money?

Those advertisements prove the truth of the old adage that a fool and his money are soon parted. I understand that the advertisements are to be referred to the Advertising Standards Authority because they are inaccurate in almost every possible way. The only good news is that the albatross which hovers above the stormtossed waves is symbolic of Eurotunnel's general prospects.

The Government are doing their best to honour the clear pledge that there will be no subsidies, yet, simultaneously, Eurotunnel is issuing press releases and finalising negotiations with the EIB, which is a back-door source of public funds. That is a violation of the no-subsidy rule. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take this early chance to knock that manoeuvre on the head. Basically, I welcome the new clause.

I endorse the welcome given to the new clause because, like the majority of people, I welcome any underlining of the basic commitment to the pledge that no taxpayers' money will be invested in the project. That is more than just a Government pledge; it is a fundamental reason why the project has got so far. If it were not for the commitment that there would be no taxpayers' money invested in the project, we would not be debating the project today. The belief of the Government in that basic premise has carried the project thus far. That proposition would not necessarily commend itself to many Opposition Members, or, indeed, to passionate tunnellers on the Conservative Benches, of whom there are some.

The funds in the EIB are taxpayers' money and there can be no doubt about that. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will make it absolutely clear from the Front Bench today that there will be no fudging, no doubts and no ambiguity on this, that in furthering their commitment there will be no application to the EIB, and that such an application would be prohibited by the terms of the treaty.

The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) welcomed the new clause and said that the advance toll payment might have been attractive to British Rail. He was worried, not that Government funds should reach Eurotunnel in that way, but that British Rail would he prevented from making a commercial investment. I can assure him that there is nothing to prevent British Rail from making a commercial investment. It cannot use Government funds for that purpose and it would have to have the approval of the Secretary of State before making such an investment.

My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East, (Mr. Taylor) welcomed our speedy action to close the loophole. He recognised the Government's clear commitment to no Government funding and asked how we would prevent Euro-funding, particularly funding from the EIB. It is true that the concessionaires are considering raising loan finance through the EIB, but that is not Government investment by another name. EIB loans are not in themselves EEC-financed. The EIB is a secondary financial institution, the sources of its funds being through banks throughout the Community, not through Governments. We have made it clear that the prospect of any loans being guaranteed by member states, as is common with EIB funding, is unacceptable to both the British and French Governments. Any loan finance provided by the EIB will be on a purely commercial basis, supported not by the Government, but by the clearing banks in the member states. They, not the Government, will bear the contingent liability. There is no way that the Government will stand behind any EIB loan.

rose—

rose—

One moment.

My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East quoted from an EEC document and, referring to medium-term loans on attractive terms, suggested that that meant subsidies. EIB loans are sometimes guaranteed by Governments, but not in this case.

If the Minister is saying that the EIB gets its money from commercial banks, not Governments, why on earth on page 30 of the autumn statement did the Chancellor of the Exchequer explain that a reason why we were having to increase our net contributions to the EEC this year was a payment of £48 million to the EIB? Surely the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not a joint stock bank.

Is the offer of attractive fixed terms of interest based on the fact that the EIB gets its cash from member states or from loans guaranteed by member states and that this is a commercial operation? Surely the Minister cannot accept that it is all money from banks, when the loans are guaranteed by member states and the Government paid an additional £48 million this year, not last year or next year. What on earth is the Chancellor doing paying £48 million extra this year into the EIB?

I can reassure my hon. Friend on this matter. Some investments by the EIB involve a Government guarantee, but this is not one of them. Therefore, any contribution which the Chancellor may have made may have been in respect of other matters. There is no Government guarantee whatever for this EIB loan. Any risks, contingent or real, which may materialise will fall on the banks that put up the money, not on the Government. 1 hope that my hon. Friend will find that reassuring.

Will the Minister give us a firm, clear, absolute guarantee that there will be no question of any member state, neither Britain nor France, covering possible exchange losses on these loans? As I understand it, that is built into the framework of the EIB.

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance; no such guarantees will be given.

My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) expressed concern about Government amendment No. 4. That amendment ensures that it will be clear that the guarantees referred to in subsection (2) are similarly guarantees in respect of the concessionaires' borrowing. My hon. Friend also claims that Eurotunnel is now borrowing an extra £1 billion. He said that formerly Eurotunnel had sufficient funds, but it has now not been able to secure those funds from the initially proposed banking sources and, as a result, Eurotunnel has changed its plans. I am sorry, but my hon. Friend is yet again wrong. The European Investment Bank was always one of the potential sources of borrowing. Indeed, I had the pleasure of attending a reception not long ago given by the European Investment Bank at which this was a matter of considerable discussion.

I have in my hand a copy of Eurotunnel's prospectus. On page 63 there is a list of the underwriting banks. There are 40 of these banks, but the European Investment Bank is not included. Its name is not in the list. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will withdraw his aspersions about accuracy.

The European Investment Bank was on a list for a draft loan. The decision as to whether that draft loan should be firmed up into a firm commitment is under consideration.

When a Minister has made a mistake, I believe that he must admit that he has made a mistake. The prospectus is quite clear and it lists the 40 banks. Of course, it is possible that other loans in addition to these are being considered. That was my very point. I was rather surprised that an additional £1 billion-worth of loans was being considered in addition to the £4 billion-worth of loans which are carefully itemised in the prospectus.

I am intrigued at the fact that my hon. Friend the Minister is now so willing to answer on behalf of Eurotunnel when at Question Time yesterday the Secretary of State refused point blank to answer any questions on behalf of Eurotunnel. There is a little confusion here.

It is not that I am answering on behalf of Eurotunnel. I am doing my best to try to help my hon. Friend, who has been misleading himself, and I know that he would not wish to do that.

The European Investment Bank is not referred to in the prospectus. All along, the European Investment Bank has been on the draft loan arrangement document. Moreover, as I have said, that was the subject of a good deal of discussion at a recent reception in the congenial surroundings of the Savoy hotel. We had a great deal of discussion on that subject.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I hope that the Government will be able to make some concessions towards the principle of this new clause. It is basically quite simple. It suggests that there should be a procedure agreement for those employed in the tunnel which would ensure, first of all, that there was no entitlement to take strike action of a disruptive nature and, secondly, that there should be provision for

"an appeal on unresolved grievances to an independent tribunal."

Hon. Members may ask what is it about the operation of the Channel tunnel that is different from other forms of transport, where there is no such requirement about strike action? There is a world of difference between the Channel tunnel and the ferries, railways, airports or any other form of transport. The organisation of a disruptive strike on transport such as rail, air or ships is a lengthy process. Those who use such forms of traffic have the opportunity to prepare for the disputes and there is an opportunity for action to be taken in the courts under the industrial relations legislation, if that is possible..

There is another major difference in that there are usually other alternative means of transport available. If the Channel tunnel project is successful, the tunnel will change that pattern dramatically. For a start, the operators of the tunnel claim that about 50 per cent. of cross-Channel traffic will have to go through the one artery. The second difference is that the alternative form of transport— the ferries— will undoubtedly be decimated if the tunnel goes ahead and attracts the business that it hopes to achieve. The third difference is that one or two key personnel working in the tunnel could bring traffic to a sudden halt by strike action or a work-to-rule.

However, it is fair to say that we must safeguard the interests of employees in the tunnel. How can that best be achieved? The best way to achieve that would be through a sensible procedure agreement such as we have with one or two of the essential public services. That would ensure that justice was given to the employees by means of binding arbitration, binding on employees and the operators.

If we do not have such an arrangement, a strike could have a devastating effect on trade between Britain and Europe. We know that there is considerable trade in both directions across the Channel although, as a representative of the United Kingdom Parliament, I find it sad that there is now a balance of payments deficit of more than £10 Channel Tunnel Bill 872 billion in manufacturing trade which would almost justify us having two tunnels in one direction and only one in the other direction.

A considerable volume of trade crosses the Channel. If there was a danger of that trade being disrupted by industrial action on the part of a small group of people, that could have a serious effect on the economy. I hope, therefore, that the Government will accept the principle of the clause and that the operators will take every possible step to ensure that a procedure agreement is made with the employees which would not permit the use of strike action, but which would allow appeal to binding arbitration if there was a genuine unresolved grievance. Without such an agreement there could be serious damage to this country if industrial action were taken. I hope that the Minister will accept the principle of the clause and at least undertake to discuss it with the promoters.

We all know the idea of industrial relations held by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor). He believes that management should tell people what to do and the people at the receiving end should do it. That is his idea of an industrial relations system of negotiations. The Opposition are less than impressed with the new clause.

I can never understand the argument waged by the antitunnellers. On the one hand they claim that the Channel fixed link will be an economic disaster. They say that it will fail in no time at all. The hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) has been saying that in this Chamber and in various press releases for as long as I can remember or at least since June last year.

If these Jeremiahs and prophets of doom are correct, what are they worried about? Why should we be worried about industrial relations? If they are right and the project is to collapse, presumably the cross-Channel ferries will carry on with their cosy quasi-monopoly and things will continue as before. No doubt the hon. Member for Southend, East and the hon. Member for Thanet, South will be highly delighted at that. If they are wrong, however, they are trying to tie industrial relations for this one project in a way that industrial relations are not tied elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

The hon. Member for Southend, East will be aware that long-term discussions and negotiations are taking place between representatives of the railway unions and representatives of Eurotunnel. I would have thought that that was the place where such matters should fairly be conducted. Whatever else the Chamber is, it is not normally the place where we conclude industrial relations agreements on the part of private enterprise companies. Again, we can only imagine the indignation of the hon. Member for Southend, East who is normally incapable of passing the time of day without using at least three "disgracefuls" and one "minor catastrophe" if the Opposition proposed regular and binding arbitration on the nation's private sector. I would not have thought that such a proposition would commend itself to too many Conservative Members and certainly not, in normal circumstances, to the hon. Member for Southend, East.

Goodness knows what the hon. Member for Thanet, South would say. He would probably make the same speech once again, warning us all of doom, disaster and 40 days and 40 nights of flooding if the Minister rejects the clause. Although I do not know the views of the hon. Member for Thanet, South about the new clause, I can imagine his outburst of ire if the Opposition proposed a no-strike deal and a system of binding arbitration among the highly paid technicians of TV-am, to mention but one private sector company in the United Kingdom. We would be told, quite rightly, that such matters are not negoitable on the Floor of the House and that we should keep our noses out of industrial relations between a private sector company and its employees. I can only take that undelivered advice from the hon. Member for Thanet, South and pass it with my compliments to his hon. Friend the Minister. I hope that the Minister, who does not fall too often for the blandishments of his hon. Friends the Members for Southend, East and Thanet, South, will kick this new clause as far into touch as it deserves, with the wholehearted support of the Opposition.

I wonder if I can make a small intervention in this private debate. I have always been in favour of the tunnel, knowing all its difficulties and disadvantages. The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), who has been attacking my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), has painted him in black terms. He is not as black as that. My hon. Friend and I often disagree about matters in Europe and so on, but for once I felt that my hon. Friend was saying, "The tunnel is going to be built so we had better make a good job of it. Let us see that the trains run on time." Perhaps my hon. Friend is not the best advocate of how to avoid strikes in the middle of a tunnel, or even at the beginning or end of a tunnel. However, his new clause advances what I thought was a helpful suggestion.

Whether my hon. Friend the Minister thinks that it is possible to implement that suggestion is another matter. It might be difficult to implement. However, the aim and ideal of keeping the through passenger trains and through freight trains running on time and in good order is a good objective. I congratulate my hon. Friend on trying to help us through a difficult patch in the tunnel.

I should say first that I am a sponsored member of the National Union of Railwaymen. I will not have to say that again, if I intervene later.

I hope that this mischievous clause is resisted by the House because it deals with something that should not be decided by the House. It should be decided by the management and employees concerned. There are no-strike agreements on occasions, but those occasions are when there has been agreement between the employees and the management. On a slightly different plane, although there are problems with widows' benefits, the police by and large are happy with their rates of pay. That is not precisely analogous because the job entails that the police cannot go on strike. However, they have an agreement with which the country is happy and with which the employees are happy. The armed services have the same type of agreement.

I hope that the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) will withdraw his new clause and seek to use his influence with the management, so that when the tunnel is running the management can come together with the employees and voluntarily agree a no-strike agreement. At the end of the day, in a free country, if we cannot voluntarily agree that and we insist on passing it in the House, I fear that we do not have a free country any more.

The concept of no-strike agreements in essential services is gaining attention and perhaps support in the country and certainly on Conservative Benches. Therefore, the clause of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) does not deserve to be so lightly dismissed by the Opposition.

The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) made what is a familiar point to me, about how it is sometimes necessary to argue for what will happen to the tunnel in the short term and produce one set of arguments and then to look ahead at what might happen in the longer term. I do not regard those two positions as contradictory in any way. My view has always been that the tunnel, in the short term, will go bankrupt and that at some later stage it will be rescued. In the course of the rescue it will be possible to operate the tunnel much more cheaply as a result of having written off the unfortunate equity investors' investment. Thereafter, with the capital costs written off, it will be possible to run the tunnel very competitively, although the process may be repeated more than once and there may be a second bankruptcy and a second rescue.

Once the tunnel is built, I believe that one day it will operate and succeed. That being the case, one should look beyond what I think will be the miserable next five years or so and ask what would be the conditions in which we would like to see the tunnel being run in the event of it becoming the main artery of our communications to Europe. If it is our main artery to Europe, we should treat it as a strategic investment.

The hon. Gentleman has suggested that capital should have the right to strike in the tunnel but that we should deny the people who work in the tunnel the right of industrial action if it should become necessary. The hon. Gentleman's scenario is that the tunnel will collapse in five years because there will be a strike of capital, but he is arguing that we now have to control the workers and make sure that they have no right to withdraw the only thing at their disposal, their labour.

I have some sympathy with that position—at least I understand it—and I would certainly like to see any no-strike agreement being mutually negotiated.

The reality of the industrial relations suggestion is that at this moment it is somewhat far-fetched. Nevertheless, one should look forward to the day, 30 years or so from now, when the tunnel will have to be regarded as a key strategic interest of Britain when it may be our main arterial link with Europe. If that is the case, the idea that the same industrial relations rule can easily apply to that as apply to TVam or any other company that is operating in the private sector, is not realistic.

My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East may be ahead of his time. However, although much water may pass under the bridge and many bankruptcies within the tunnel may lie in between, if the tunnel is going to he as pivotal a link with Europe as the optimists predict, we should one day examine a clause such as this.

The Government cannot accept this new clause, as both the prognosis that it implies and the remedy that it offers are mistaken. However, I am fascinated that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) is anxious to put Eurotunnel in a preferential position compared to its competitors, which have to manage their industrial relations competently. My hon. Friend painted a lurid picture of the Channel tunnel being so successful and ruthless that it will drive the ferries out of business and control the straits of Dover. As a result, he envisages the trade and economic life of Britain being under constant threat of strangulation.

My hon. Friend's predictions of total dependence on the Channel tunnel are grossly exaggerated. Eurotunnel's forecasts, which the opponents of the project criticise as optimistic, suggest that the tunnel would capture one third of the cross-Channel unitised freight and less than 8 per cent. of the non-unitised freight. That means that 66 per cent. of the unitised freight and 92 per cent. of the non-unitised freight could continue to cross the Channel even if the tunnel service was disrupted. I am sure that those existing modes would rapidly take up any slack caused by the events to which my hon. Friend has referred.

It will be for Eurotunnel to decide whether to negotiate with its employees and their representatives suitable procedures for the settlement of disputes. It would be for the parties to consider whether any such agreement should preclude the right to take industrial action in return for independent arbitration. But if they do decide to include such a condition in their agreement, it would be because both sides are satisfied that it would be in their best interests. A no-strike and compulsory arbitration agreement, freely negotiated, would not require a clause in the Bill to permit it to operate. I hope that my hon. Friend will see the force of these arguments and withdraw his clause.

My hon. Friend claimed that the Channel tunnel was different because, with other forms of transport, there is a certitude of notice. Commuters from Waterloo last week were not especially conscious of the degree of notice they were given. I have recollections, as do other Members of this House, of ferry ports and even airports where strikes have occurred at very short notice. I do not think my hon. Friend has researched that part of his argument quite as thoroughly as he normally does.

I hope I will not damage the reputation in his party of the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) when I say that his argument that this sort of thing ought to be decided by management and employees is one with which I wholly agree. As to my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) fantasising about multiple bankruptcies, the only things missing this time were the references to the Japanese, the Iranians and other middle east people who are going to put their money into this project and lose it.

I did not find the Minister's reply very convincing, but I think he is enormously underestimating the damage to the economy if, as we now hear, with the help of some public funding from the European Investment Bank, this project goes ahead and is disrupted by small groups. I am also sorry that he has not given even an indication to the promoters that he would personally favour a clause of this sort to protect the travelling public and reduce their inconvenience. However, it is quite clear that there is no support for this proposal in the House. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The House will be aware of the provisions of this clause, which places a duty on the British Railways Board

"to prepare a plan as to action to be taken (whether by way of executing works or carrying out of development by other persons or otherwise) for the purpose of securing that the proportion of cross-Channel passenger and freight traffic to be carried by rail is increased."

The view put forward consistently by the Government is that this project provides the railway network in this country with an unparalleled opportunity. That is one of the reasons why, with a great many reservations, we on this side of the House have supported the project. Now comes the time for the Minister to confirm his good intentions by accepting the clause. We believe that the dispersal of rail traffic throughout the United Kingdom is vital.

None of us should be under any illusions about the decline of railway freight traffic in recent years which has been caused by various factors, some of which are well beyond the control of the British Railways Board. Over the past 15 to 20 years productivity within the road haulage industry has improved dramatically because of the motorway network and lorries being allowed to travel faster and particularly with some relaxation of lorry driving hours under EEC regulations.

That increased productivity and those developments led to a great and accelerating transfer of freight from rail to road. Surely the cross-Channel link will provide British Rail with the opportunity of reversing that trend. If we are to accept that the minimum economic distance to carry freight by rail, given the circumstances which I have outlined, is about 250 miles, then British Rail, for the first time, has the opportunity genuinely to compete with the road haulage industry because the cross-Channel link will plug in the British Rail network to the whole of Europe. But that opportunity will be thrown away without proper dispersal of rail traffic throughout the United Kingdom.

The Minister, although he expressed some pious hopes about the future, did not give the Standing Committee or my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) much cause for satisfaction. The first question we must ask is how and where this traffic will be dispersed.

Let us consider cross-Channel traffic which will originate in the Manchester area once the link opens. Over the past 15 or 20 years virtually all the rail freight depots in the Greater Manchester area have closed. There are no facilities that could be provided at the present time to enable people or industrialists to take advantage of the fixed link. Although the picture may be gloomy in Manchester, it is not quite as bad in other parts of the country, but investment is needed if British Rail is to take advantage of its inland competitive position.

In the Birmingham area, although Bescot sidings still exist, British Rail would need additional plans to develop those sidings in such a way that they are best able to take advantage of this traffic. There is still one freight liner terminal in the Birmingham area, a comparatively small one. What hope or financial inducements can the Minister of State hold out to British Rail that prior to the tunnel opening in 1993 the necessary investments will have been provided to the Lawley street freightliner depot in Birmingham to enable it to take advantage of that upsurge in container traffic?

Within the last 10 days, the British Rail subsidiary, Freightliner Ltd., announced the closure of eight freightliner terminals. Let us consider the example of an industrialist in the Humberside area who would wish to take advantage of the Channel fixed link. Because of the latest announcements, the Hull freightliner terminal will have long ceased to exist by 1993. What offer or inducement is the Minister prepared to offer to give those industrialists in Humberside an opportunity to use the rail freight facilities? Will those facilities be provided prior to the opening of the tunnel?

We .ask in this new clause that the board prepare and regularly update such plans so that we can see in the years up to 1993 exactly what provision is being made countrywide to take advantage of these opportunities. In Standing Committee we talked about measures that have been taken in northern France. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central compared the number of inland clearance points in France and Germany with those in the United Kingdom. He talked about France having 240 and Germany having 250 such points, yet he said that the British criterion for the creation of those inland clearance points is a minimum of 30,000 customs entries per hour.

The hon. Member may remember that in Standing Committee I made the point, which I think is worth repeating, that it seems entirely sensible that industrialists and others, where they thought it worthwhile, should be allowed to contract for the necessary customs clearance services, and if they did not reach the Government's pre-arranged patterns they should be allowed to buy in the additional ones if they felt it was to their profit to do so.

Unlike his hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale), who is presumably saving his speech for later, the points made by the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) are normally worth repeating. In the case of the hon. Member for Thanet, North, even though they are not worth repeating, he repeats them anyway. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will get a more sympathetic response from the Minister of State than the one that he got in Standing Committee. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central, if he catches Mr. Speaker's eye, will say that the provision of customs facilities and proper rail freight facilities are vital if the potential for British Rail from this project is to be realised. It will not do to say that we should leave it to market forces or until 1993.

We are the first to concede that the road transport network is more flexible than rail. It runs from door to door and it is possible within the United Kingdom to load a piece of freight on to a lorry and take it to its destination without the sort of transhipment that would be necessary if such a load were taken by rail. Surely it is necessary to provide facilities a long time before 1993. We are not saying in the new clause that rail freight facilities should be provided full scale from one end of Britain to the other. I have already said that in some parts of the country work could take place right now—[Interruption.] As my hon. Friend reminds me, it would be helpful to stop the closure of freightliner depots. That is happening at a time when we are talking about a massive expansion in rail freight as a result of the fixed link. It is vital that the work takes place a long time before the tunnel opens in 1993.

At the conclusion of our debate in Standing Committee the Minister of State said:

"no decisions are needed until nearer the opening of the tunnel".— [Official Report, Standing Committee A, 15 January 1987; c. 575.]

We do not accept that, and that is why we have tabled the new clause. Decisions taken now will have an enormous impact on rail freight carriers into the 1990s. If British Rail is not allowed to prepare adequately by not being given the finance to enable it to take advantage of the expected upsurge in rail freight traffic arising from the fixed link, the competitive advantage of road haulage will be maintained into the 1990s. We will see an ever increasing number of heavy goods vehicles—juggernaut lorries—on our roads and will experience the consequent environmental problems.

Given the scale of this project, it would be folly not to provide adequate facilities to enable British Rail to take advantage of the competitive boost that the provision of the fixed link will give it. For those and other reasons, I hope that the Minister of State, who made some sympathetic noises in Committee, will go a little further and will accept the new clause.

I strongly support the new clause. We are told in the Eurotunnel briefing papers about the tunnel that in the 10 years from 1975 to 1985 freight traffic increased from 10 million tonnes to 23 million tonnes. As the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) rightly says, this month's edition of Modern Railways shows a picture of the closing of the freight. terminal at Dudley. I think it was Dudley, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman can confirm that. We now have fewer than 20 freight terminals and the figure may be as low as 12. That is daft at a time when we are all hoping and predicting that: the tunnel will result in an uplift in freight from many parts of the United Kingdom and will present an opportunity to get into France, Germany and Italy.

One of the most ridiculous things I have ever seen was the withdrawal of the siding into Nine Elms. Nine Elms is the new Covent Garden and all the produce coming there could come by rail. Lettuce, tomatoes and cucumbers come from Spain, and at one time there was a huge import of South African oranges into Southampton. The obvious thing to do is to get that produce straight into Nine Elms but all the sidings have been removed. Will the same thing be done in other places, and will we be told in four or five years' time, when there is a demand for sidings to be put back in such places as Hull, Sheffield and Manchester, that it would cost millions of pounds to do it and that it cannot be done because of that high cost and an inadequate subsidy?

I accept that for some years Government policy has been to help in the construction of new sidings in various parts of Britain. It would be daft to allow British Rail to continue the process of closing freightliner terminals and sidings. We should at least be putting them into mothballs to make sure that we do not cause any more damage until we have seen what can be picked up when the tunnel is built.

Having listened to the speeches by the hon. Members for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) and for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross), it seems that they have little confidence in the present British Rail management. They suggest that it is necessary to enshrine in the Bill the necessity to prepare a plan. Presumably that plan will do that which British Rail would normally do anyway to further the commercial interests of the business that it operates.

There is no evidence to show that the British Rail management is not aware of the opportunities that are likely to arise from the Channel tunnel. On the contrary, in conversations with British Rail, in correspondence and in articles that I have read, the management is well aware of the tremendous opportunities that the link will present for the freight system of British Rail.

The problem presently worrying the industry is that the freightliner system has to operate within the parameters of the United Kingdom and that none of the train runs is ever long enough to justify the amount of handling of the containers from the factory on to the train and at the delivery point. Other than by dedicated train loads from factory to factory it is probably far quicker to ship them by road. Most economists suggest that the minimum train run required is 250 miles and very few routes in Britain give that opportunity. The tunnel link will open up thousands of miles, allowing rail freight to. be taken throughout Europe.

The dispersal of commercial traffic is best left to the commercial aspects of the market. There is no way in which the British Rail board, in some so-called plan, can go to Nissan in Sunderland and say, "Look, the plan that Parliament has asked us to put into effect requires us to ascertain now whether we can carry your cars in 1993 into the European market." Nissan would say, "There is no chance. We are not interested and not convinced. What are the costs? At the moment we have our own system of shipping the cars direct from Newcastle across to the Continent." The problems that face the management of British Rail in trying to work year by year to a plan like that are immense. It would tie up an army of bureaucrats and administrators trying to decide who wanted a siding here or a siding there.

We have heard that some freightliner depots have been closed. Certainly dedicated freightliner depots have been closed but, as we all know, it is relatively easy to construct or re-install a depot with the aid of a modest crane. A simple rail link can be put into any factory at a small additional cost in seven or eight years' time. It does not necessitate the tying up of vast amounts of capital and resources and the installation of dedicated terminals now on the offchance that at some time in the mid-1990s there will be traffic for them.

Quite apart from whether Nissan would seriously be prepared to consider alternative costs for transport by rail rather than by sea, which is suggested by the way that Nissan plans ahead on its production location decisions worldwide, is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the French railways also plan and have forms of planning agreement and a long-term planning perspective? Will we have planning and intervention on one side of the Channel tunnel and free market forces on the other? If we have, God help us, because the French will sweep the market.

The hon. Gentleman has made an interesting comparison between the way that the French do things and the way that we are trying to do things. Eventually one will have to decide who gets the better value for the money that is being invested. I have no evidence to suggest that French railways handle their freight better than the United Kingdom, except that they have the opportunity of a European network, whereas we have the liability of a branch line network. Once we have tapped the resources that the Channel link will give us, the commercial aspect of a British Rail freight operation will probably lick the pants off any French state system, which will become bogged down in its own bureaucracy, as we have seen with the airlines today. If one compares our own free enterprise airlines with the state systems in Europe, it will be seen that one receives a better service from our airlines because they respond better to the initiatives in the market place.

Amidst the comic cuts of the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King)— who represents an area which is an example of the collapse of private enterprise and which has had to be rescued by the state— is he aware that to talk such appalling claptrap underlines the fact that the hon. Member knows as much about running a railway system as I do about who writes his speeches?

The hon. Gentleman does not know the west midlands very well. I assume that he is referring to the car industry. If he is referring to Jaguar, Land Rover and Freight Rover, he will see that they are profitable. One of those companies has been privatised and the others are doing nicely. There is a little local difficulty in Longbridge, but we will put that right in the not too distant future.

In my constituency we have a car factory that is turning out thousands of cars per year with a growing expectation in the European market. That factory is available to take on the opportunities given by a dedicated rail system that will enable goods to leave the Longbridge works and be within the continent of Europe within the day. We readily welcome that opportunity, but it does not need the British Rail Board to come along to Longbridge and say that they want to plan something in 1993—it is happening now because it is good commercial sense. That is the sort of system that we want. As a result of the opportunities that a commercially orientated rail network can bring, which British Rail can readily afford, there is no reason why the system should not be privatised and why we should not have Rail Freight plc so that it can freely adapt and take on the opportunities on offer.

I am becoming more and more fascinated by the hon. Gentleman's speech with every sentence that he utters. What he is suggesting, if I have understood him, is that normal capitalist enterprises do not plan their investment as far ahead as 1993. If he is right, it explains why the economy of Britain is in such a bloody mess.

Order. I must reproach the hon. Gentleman for the crudeness of his language. Plain language is not quite the same thing as coarse language.

I apologise for using that word, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and, in the interestes of the delicacy of the House, I shall not repeat it and say that that is why the country is in such a filthy state.

I remember that when I was deciding what political creed to follow in the early 1960s my views were prejudiced by a so-called national plan, which seemed to me to set the country on a route to complete disaster because it confined the country to a narrow corridor of development. Since then, all kinds of plans which spread themselves over a decade or so have not appealed to me in the slightest. Of course commercial businesses plan ahead on a 12-month and two-year cycle and indeed a five-year cycle. What this amendment is suggesting is that it is a commitment, a part of the Bill. It should be left to the rail board to draw up its own confidential commercial plan, of which I am sure it is quite capable without the necessity of Parliament having to tell it what to do.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) underlines the position with regard to the present Administration and their lack of understanding of what industry wants. The chamber of commerce in Sheffield, along with the local authority, has put its money where its mouth is and tried to devise a scheme or argument as to why we should have inland customs clearance, and we have brought in independent assessment of that situation.

The argument of the chamber of commerce is that people looking to the north of England for investment will look at transport infrastructure as a major element for five, six, seven or eight years in the future. That is extremely important. That is not the flippant speech of some cowboys; serious consideration has been given to it.

The north-south divide has been clearly quantified in the last few weeks. There is genuine and serious concern that the Channel tunnel will bring resources down into the south-east. The Select Committee on Transport looked at that national impact. Its first report on the Channel link was assessed in 1985 and 1986. The minutes of proceedings say in paragraph 121:

"It has been argued that a fixed link might induce a further drain of economic activity from already distressed parts of the Midlands and the North. In addition, some concern has been expressed that owing to its nearness to continental markets and to French Government and EEC assistance, the Pas de Calais region might benefit unduly. The National Union of Marine, Aviation and Shipping Transport Officers (NUMAST) has suggested that if a fixed link does encourage investment in manufacturing it will be in France rather than the UK. 'An industrialist who wishes to establish a manufacturing capacity to serve the north-west European market and is faced with a choice of regional incentives from northern England and Scotland and from northern France is much more likely to choose the latter and to treat the UK market as peripheral' … the Committee feels it is essential that the UK derives an equal benefit from the link and stresses the need to ensure that there is no unfair discrimination in favour of industry or employment in France."

As my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) has been saying, we went into some detail in Committee. The French are geared up in northern France, not just in transport infrastructure, but in industrial infrastructure and educational resources. Many hundreds of millions of pounds are being spent in that area to make it attractive to industrialists in their long-term planning. That is very serious for the north of England.

It is unfortunate that the way in which the Channel Tunnel Bill has been discussed does not allow us to get any co-ordination across Government Departments— the Department of Transport, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Home Office and so on. The French regional and national councils, the PAL, are co-ordinating their effort to extract the maximum benefits for northern France. We have no like bodies in the United Kingdom. so this narrow Bill has considerable economic and industrial impact upon the United Kingdom.

One example is inland customs clearance. I put it into the context of the reply that I received from the Minister in Standing Committee:

"If the railways board believes that it can generate traffic that will justify those facilities it is up to it to set out the facts and make the case to the customs authorities."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 15 January 1987; c. 575.]

Under the criteria laid down by the customs—a Home Office responsibility— it has first of all to show that there will be about 30,000 entries per annum into that particular depot. British Rail's freight organisation tells us that that is about 3 tonnes a wagonload and that that will be classed as an entry.

The hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) talked earlier about getting a number of industrialists together to try to develop enough traffic to justify a depot. We are talking about 1 million tonnes of freight having to go through a depot before the criteria laid down by her Majesty's Customs are met. France and Germany look at the matter from a different point of view. They ask whether industry, the community and the development in certain areas require such a depot. They do not have the bureaucratic approach of saying, "We will not put one there until you can bring in that level of freight". It is impossible to meet the criterion of 1 million tonnes a year.

In Committee, the Minister said that the customs authority would require proof. The ground rules laid down for BR are well-nigh impossible. That is the point that we were making to the Secretary of State, yet that has been compounded with the closure of eight depots— in Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh, Newcastle, Hull, Manchester, Nottingham and Swansea. I got that information from an article in the Yorkshire Post on 10 January. We are asking for a transport infrastructure which will enable freight to be moved much more effectively by having it cleared at the source of production—I argued in Committee that there should be one in south Yorkshire— yet that is becoming increasingly more difficult.

We must also consider the criteria under which BR is having to work. It must show clearly the return on capital employed. As I said earlier, we have done a feasibility study on that. We are talking about expenditure of about £1.5 million to £2 million in order to put that depot in south Yorkshire. Do we wait to make that investment until the Channel tunnel has been opened, or do we say that we shall have a network of inland customs clearance depots and so should have that up-front expenditure? If we do not, it will be catch 22. Investors will not come to the industrial north if it does not have a transport infrastruture to move the goods away quickly to the European markets. That is serious.

To discuss that within the narrow concept of the railways and BR's decision would be to deny British industry an opportunity to have some say in its regeneration. That is why subsection (4) is important. It says:

"The Board shall publish a plan and any revision to the plan in such a manner as they consider best calculated to bring it to the attention of those who will be affected by its implementation."

That is important, because it is not only BR that is affected. There will be an impact on industry. There may be major benefits for industry, but if industry is not allowed to be part of the discussions and to put forward its ideas to BR, an opportunity will be missed.

I know that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I might be in some conflict on this. The areas that we represent are in close proximity and I know that you have received some overtures about an inland customs clearance depot for your area. Nevertheless. I hope that, in the light of the Minister's comments in Committee and the comments made in the Select Committee, the Minister will now be able to accept the new clause. It takes cognisance of his reply in Committee about the responsibility of BR. He said that BR was undertaking a survey, and that is welcome. But some direction at least should be written into the Bill. At the end of the day, this is not just a matter for BR. Many people, particularly in the north of England, first, will want to contribute to the report, and, secondly, hope that they will be able to influence its direction.

The new clause has been drafted to reflect the points made by the Minister in Committee and adds that there will be an ongoing dialogue, that the report will be published and will be open for debate and comment. To that extent, it could be made into a much more meaningful exercise than the one described in Committee, which was left solely to British Rail's criteria.

I support new clause 3 and I should like to tell you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the House why. New clause 3 says that British Rail should publish a plan and bring it to the attention of those who will be affected by its implementation. It is clear that, since we first heard of the Bill, British Rail has done no research into the probable social, environmental or planning effects of the Channel tunnel. [Interruption.] It is interesting that the Minister should laugh at that. If it has, as a Member of Parliament for a constituency that is directly affected, may I have access to the planning that has been done? The fact that the Minister can laugh raises some interesting questions concerning, for example, consultation, not only with the local community but also with hon. Members. Such issues are not simply a matter of courtesy but come near to the question of the privilege of hon. Members.

I was at a conference on the dispersal of Channel tunnel traffic in Birmingham on 21 January with a Mr. Southgate, a manager of British Rail who is responsible for the Channel tunnel project. Although I was on the platform with Mr. Southgate, he neglected to tell me—I certainly was not told in writing before it occurred—that two days later BR would open an exhibition at Waterloo containing plans for the terminal and its elevation and design at Waterloo on which I have put questions time and again to the Minister in the House. I have asked for the precise specification, when we could see the plans and the elevation and how it works. The Minister, who is smiling again, said that that was a matter for British Rail, not for him.

As a local Member of Parliament, I was not even informed of that exhibition by British Rail, despite the advantage that Mr. Southgate had of meeting me on 21 January. I learned the day before the exhibition opened from Thames Television, which telephoned me to ask what I thought about the new plans and the new model for a terminal at Waterloo which was to be opened the next day. The following morning I had a prior commitment, again to be in Birmingham, and I could not be at BR's opening of the plans for the terminal at Waterloo. I put it to Thames Television that as far as I was aware I had not even received an invitation to view the model or its specifications.

Indeed, not only did I not receive an invitation in advance, but I received a letter today dated 26 January from a Mr. P. C. Trewen, the parliamentary affairs manager of the BR Board. Under the heading "British Rail and the Channel Tunnel Waterloo International Terminal", it says:

"As you may know British Rail has opened an Information Centre at Waterloo Station … The Centre is open from … I thought you would like to know of this development. You are very welcome to visit the Centre."

That exhibition, containing information on the terminal at Waterloo on which I had put questions to Ministers without receiving a response, opened on 23 January. The invitation was sent to me on 26 January.

This is not a small or chiding matter. It is, in my view, symptomatic of the whole way in which Ministers have been handling the issue of this Bill and its passage through the House. The reason that the managers of British Rail can actually get away with behaviour of this kind towards elected Members of Parliament, or have done so far, is precisely the attitude that Ministers have towards key questions which have been put on this Bill and which they have not answered on the Floor of this House.

8.30 pm

For example, consultation, which is of course referred to in new clause 3, is covered by the words

"To bring it to the attention of those who will be affected by its implementation"—

that is, the implementation of a plan.

On the matter of consultation, neither British Rail nor the Government have initiated any proper consultation with the local community in Waterloo, despite the fact that this is supposed to include a flagship terminal for the Channel tunnel traffic. The public consultation with British Rail was initiated by residents in 1981 and aided by Lambeth council in 1983. Its findings have been totally ignored by British Rail in its recent statement on the Channel tunnel terminal at Waterloo. In fact, the siting of a terminal at Waterloo would have major and potentially devastating consequences on the local area and should have been the subject of a major planning inquiry. A plan in that sense already exists—a community development plan for the area. Normally, whether this were a third London airport or a Sizewell reactor, there would be a public inquiry into its implications.

The kind of traffic throughput which we are likely to get at Waterloo has been estimated to be equivalent to that at Gatwick airport. In Committee on this Bill we had a day and a half for local community groups to give their evidence, not much more than half a day for Lambeth council to give its evidence and no answer from Ministers to some of the key questions which have been raised. For example, a case has been made by Lambeth council and the GLC against the siting of a terminal at Waterloo. This charged that British Rail had in fact done no detailed costings of alternative sites. I stand by that allegation. If British Rail has done any detailed costing of alternative sites, we have not seen the figures.

Last year, for example, BR put out a general statement asking, "Why is Waterloo favoured?" In the question and answer format, it said in its answer:

"There is a clear commercial value in a single city centre terminal with good connections to other rail routes and other modes of internal transport."

Let us just take that point. The underground connections from Waterloo to the rest of the underground network are not especially good. They happen to be far better from Victoria, which goes straight through to some of the key stations to the north via the Victoria line. That is one reason why the Victoria line was built.

We have been told, for example, that the Bakerloo line can easily accommodate the traffic likely to be generated by the additional passengers coming from Waterloo.

I hate to intervene in my hon. Friend's argument, but he must realise that the Victoria underground line is almost running to capacity at the moment.

I am most indebted to my hon. Friend for telling me that the Victoria line is running at full capacity at present. That is one reason why I believe that LRT has proposals to increase its capacity. What I presume it is not aware of is that there has been an admission by David Baylis, who is a London Regional Transport board member and planner, that the Bakerloo line extension proposed recently through the Elephant and Bricklayers Arms to West Croydon will itself now be in question because of the take-up of capacity on the Bakerloo line by bringing international traffic to Waterloo. This should he of some interest to those in south London who have recently been given the impression that there would be an extension of the Bakerloo line. The new Bakerloo line is very unlikely to go ahead if Waterloo is the exclusive flagship terminal in London.

This is a major transport and planning policy issue, which has not been addressed by Ministers, not brought by them to the Floor of the House. It is one of very great significance, to which I shall shortly return.

In other respects— for example, in terms of the costing of Waterloo—British Rail said last year:

"Victoria Station was carefully evaluated as the location for the international terminal but has been rejected on a number of counts."

These include allegedly limiting the number of platforms which can be accommodated, road access, and so forth.

"What is the comparative cost between the two options?"

It claims:

"The Waterloo development will cost in the order of £45 million. Victoria, a minimal proposal, would cost £7 million, while a proposal with four platforms would cost £16 to £17 millions and one with five platforms up to £27 millions."

In the exhibition at Waterloo for the public in general there are none of these nuances of figures, saying that Victoria, for example, would cost only £16 million more than Waterloo. Rather, there is the broad assertion that Victoria would cost 50 per cent. more than Waterloo. It would be very interesting to have a discussion about these matters. Unfortunately, we are in no position to challenge these figures unless we know how the figures themselves are composed. What is the premise for those figures? What are the actual detailed costings? What are the implications, for example, having some Channel tunnel traffic accommodated at Waterloo and some Channel tunnel traffic accommodated at Victoria? Why should it not be possible to get on a train at the Gare du Nord, or in Brussels, and know that the train on the hour is going to Waterloo and the train at quarter past the hour is going to Victoria and alternating termini? That would be likely to increase the effectiveness of Channel tunnel traffic, for the very simple reason that a unique load capacity at Waterloo would limit the frequency of the service.

British Rail again told us that it had examined other sites running through Kensington Olympia, West Brompton, Shepherds Bush, Docklands, Warwick road, London Bridge, Blackfriars, Cannon street, Holborn Viaduct and Bricklayers Arms. It was only today, in taking up the invitation in this letter to view the exhibition, that I came to Waterloo station; there, lo and behold, we have a ranking of stations in meeting criteria as the terminus for Channel tunnel traffic. On the first criterion, convenience for central London and the City, Waterloo gets a tick, Victoria gets a tick, Olympia gets a cross. On the second, access from the terminal to other BR routes, they all rate a tick. On the third, additional capacity at the existing station, we then move into three evaluative categories of good, medium and poor. On additional capacity, Waterloo gets "good", while Victoria and Olympia get "medium".

On the fourth criterion—that of additional capacity on approach routes— Waterloo comes out as good, Victoria medium and Olympia good. All three meet the fifth criterion, that of the feasibility of 400m platforms, as they do the sixth, space for four or five Channel tunnel platforms. In the seventh test— of 500 sq m for a passenger terminal—Waterloo and Victoria pass with a tick, but Olympia gets a cross. They all gets ticks in the eighth—other direct rail access or egress. On the ninth— other direct rail access or egress for public transport— Waterloo is rated good, Victoria medium and Olympia poor. They all get ticks on the tenth criterion. that of accessibility to the North Pole maintenance depot— which all railway enthusiasts appreciate is not located where it appears to be. On the 11 th point— no disruption to existing commuter traffic— there are straight ticks for each station.

The 12th point— infrastructure costs— indexed Waterloo at 100, Victoria at 150 and Olympia as "not available". Where is the costing for Olympia? Why has it not been done? For the whole range of other stations that British Rail suggested would be considered, there was no evaluation of the feasibility of their use in dispersed Channel traffic. Indeed, there is no quantification of the feasibility of one station rather than another. Item No. 9, which refers to road public transport access or egress, concludes that the argument is over because British Rail has judged that one proposal is good, one medium and one poor; but that is to deny the very principle of evaluating traffic congestion caused by additional traffic to individual stations.

The traffic estimates are very interesting. British Rail has been very generous, not only by informing me of an exhibition that would have answered, in principle, some of the questions that Ministers would not answer, but in using technicolor publicity— suitably in the colours of France—to launch a campaign against Lambeth council. British Rail does not allow Lambeth council space in Waterloo station to make its case against the Channel tunnel flagship terminus at Waterloo. Nor has it allowed community groups to put their case against the exclusive use of Waterloo as a Channel tunnel terminus.

I stress that both Lambeth council and the community groups have been responsible by accepting the premise that there will be a Channel tunnel fixed link, and in addressing themselves to the issue of where the traffic should go—whether there should be a single terminus or a dispersal outlet.

rose—

I shall give way to my hon. Friend, who I am sure will support me.

As ever, I am always delighted to support my hon. Friend. Perhaps he would give us a demonstration of Lambeth council's impartiality towards the project by telling the House the contents of a leaflet that I understand went through many letter boxes in Lambeth— and, indeed, as far afield as Streatham—detailing on the one hand the advantage of the Channel tunnel and on the other using three pages to describe the disadvantages of the project.

It was a very entertaining leaflet, which amused at least one member of the Select Committee when he visited Waterloo. I regret to say that my hon. Friend is wrong—it is not a Lambeth council leaflet, but one produced by an association of Waterloo groups of tenants. They said—quite rightly—that there will be a single main gain from a Channel fixed link, that of cheaper and faster access to the Continent, whether for freight or passengers. There would be considerable disadvantages to the community should there be a flagship terminus at Waterloo rather than a dispersal of traffic both within London and throughout the country.

8.45 pm

On traffic estimates, British Rail held discussions by convening a meeting and taking questions as a substitute for a public inquiry. During those discussions, Channel tunnel traffic was estimated at 13·5 million passengers. However, on another occasion British Rail's estimate of the upper range of passenger traffic likely to be generated rose to 22 million.

British Rail's "Test your knowledge of key facts and figures about the Waterloo international terminus", asks whether the number of passengers using Waterloo station each year will rise by 2003—it forgot to say that that was anno domini rather than an absolute figure—by 7 million, 13 million or 20 million. It states that the answer is 13 million—apparently quite unlike the claims of 15 million or 20 million. The reality is that the upper figure of more than 20 million has been used not only by British Rail but by the tunnel promoters to help float the issue to finance their bid. Thirteen million is an interesting figure because it is not the figure consistently used by British Rail, which has used a figure of 13·5 million on several occasions.

I note that the Minister is absolutely riveted and is about to wet his throat so that he can reply in detail to all my points. The problem is that the differences in the figures are very significant. Anything up to about 20 million passengers means at least 4 million additional vehicles per year, up to 70,000 buses, 3 million taxis and 1 million private cars. Where will they go?

There are important and interesting implications in terms of Waterloo's situation. I am sure that the House will appreciate and enjoy the visual aid that I am offering to support my analysis. However, better than that, most hon. Members are familiar with Waterloo station. Certainly the Minister is familiar because he visited Waterloo station, and we were glad that he did so. He saw that, from the exit to Waterloo east, on the road by the main concourse going to York road, British Rail is planning three-way traffic, whereas currently there is only one-way traffic and a taxi park, with room for the parking of passenger cars. Indeed, I think that the Minister was amazed. He spoke on camera directly afterwards and said that British Rail had not thought through the problem. Rather than having a mystical union with market forces— or the market mythology suggested by the hon. Member for Northfield—British Rail had not thought about the congestion that would be caused by 70,000 buses.

Even if we are generous and refer to only two thirds of the higher passenger traffic estimates, and therefore to two thirds of the number of buses, that is still an additional 48,000 buses per year. Will they be tour operator buses? Will tour operators be allowed to use the link with passenger traffic at Waterloo station?

May I inject some flexibility by suggesting that the Polytechnic of the South Bank might be moved to Kent? Kent does not have a polytechnic, but it should have one. London already has seven polytechnics. If the Polytechnic of the South Bank were moved to Kent, there would be opportunities to reshuffle a great deal of the traffic engendered—

Order. If the hon. Gentleman reads the new clause, he will realise that it refers to the dispersal of rail traffic and the construction of collection and distribution centres and inland clearance depots. I find it difficult to reconcile that with the relocation of a technical college.

The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) referred to buses, and I was suggesting a possible place where those buses might lurk.

The hon. Gentleman reminds me of a Member of the House of Lords, who dreamed one night that he was speaking there, and woke up to find that he was. The hon. Gentleman's intervention has come at the wrong stage of the debate. It is a little outside the scope of the new clause to connect parking buses and resiting a polytechnic in Kent with the generation of traffic at Waterloo.

However, the problem of where buses will go or where private cars will be parked at Waterloo is a major issue. Where can such vehicles put down and pick up traffic at Waterloo? That problem has not been addressed. There is a car park for up to 140 cars and a new car park has been planned. However, how many cars are likely to have access to or egress from the roads around Waterloo that are already substantially congested?

I am sure you will be riveted to know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this afternoon, at 1.50 pm precisely, I went to the Waterloo area to have the pleasure of examining the exhibition that claimed to give the answers to the questions that the Minister did not give. In coming up to Waterloo from the Baylis road area and going up to the road behind Waterloo, I counted 52 taxis in a queue. That represents a substantial distance—it stretched from the front of the station concourse where people normally catch cabs at Waterloo, right down the side of the station and two thirds of the way along it past one of the sharpest hairpin bends to have escaped alpine history. That bend will take three lanes of traffic if the proposal goes ahead.

On those grounds alone, there can be no way in which Waterloo is likely to be able to accommodate the additional traffic that will be generated by the Channel tunnel fixed link. It is of priority and importance that that traffic should be dispersed. That dispersal should be aimed not only to take traffic beyond London—I shall make some further comments on that shortly— but also to disperse it within London between the different stations. A single terminal at Waterloo will represent a built-in bottleneck.

To stress that argument, I should like to draw attention to the kind of games that British Rail plays with its figures. In the technicolor question and answer sheet, we are told to be confident that Lambeth has got its figures wrong but British Rail has not got its figures right. But those figures are not consistent.

Last year, British Rail assured us that on a normal weekday, outside the domestic rail passenger holiday period of July and August, there will be an additional 21,000 international train passengers a day using Waterloo. Now we are told that there will be an additional 38,000 passengers using Waterloo. You do not have to be a mathematical genius, Mr. Deputy Speaker, although you may well be, to appreciate that the difference between 21,000 and 38,000 is very nearly 100 per cent. British Rail has doubled the estimate of the number of passengers who will use Waterloo.

Then comes the placebo effect on British Rail's figures. It is stated that, in comparison to the total number of passengers using Waterloo in the 1950s and 1960s, the proposed increase in passengers represents a mere 1 per cent. extra. I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to retain in your mind that figure of 1 per cent. extra traffic. That figure has all the charm—not only the moderation—of almost infinitesimal regression. That 1 per cent. extra is so small that it suggests no one should bother about it.

That was the attitude adopted by British Rail. In practice, British Rail did not bother. It did not make any effective estimate of additional traffic and congestion costs in the Waterloo area. Instead, British Rail studied the Gibbs report. The figure given in that report of passengers using Waterloo was not 13 million or even the higher figure of 22 million, but 6 million. The Gibbs report came to the conclusion that there would be no significant additional congestion at Waterloo and therefore British Rail also decided that there would be no significant additional congestion. British Rail had the nerve to cite findings and studies by Lambeth and the Greater London council concerning congestion that were based on the Gibbs report analysis of 6 million passengers and not the current British Rail figure of some 13 million passengers.

It gets even more interesting. We are now told that the highest forecast for annual day traffic will be about 13.6 million by the year 2003. Waterloo station has display boards that state that, on average, 1,272 domestic trains used Waterloo in 1978. The average number in 1985 was 1,079. Even with the additional number of trains generated by the Channel tunnel programme, there will be only between 98 and 130 international trains using Waterloo in the year 2003. Those figures are displayed in large columns on the display boards for anybody who cannot easily calculate the difference between those figures. It is clear that the difference between 1,079 and 1,272 is more than 130.

I was rather inquisitive about those figures, which other people consider are purely factual. I discovered that the range figure between 98 and 130 trains using the station diverges substantially—the range is so wide—because two estimates are involved. One is British Rail's estimate and the other is the Eurotunnel estimate.

I asked British Rail what was the average number of weekday passengers going through Waterloo in the peak period from March to October. Those figures have also been put up on the display board by British Rail. In fact, British Rail does not put the precise figures on the board; it uses ratios. However, I have checked the figures with Nick Alexander of British Rail— he was most co operative on the phone this afternoon, and I pay him credit. The figures show that the peak passenger use of Waterloo in any post-war year with 204,000 passengers was in 1971. I asked on what foundation the range of figures at Waterloo had been based, because the words on the display board refer to

"Average weekday passengers through Waterloo at the peak, March to October".

The hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) has talked about misleading advertisements by Eurotunnel., but I think he should be talking about misleading advertising by British Rail at Waterloo station. I hope that the Minister will intervene to correct the misleading information. I found out to my surprise that the figures, rather than for average weekday passengers in the peak months of March to October, were sample figures for a peak Saturday in August. British Rail is not using an average monthly figure.

If one uses the figures of annual flow, instead of the dramatic collapse in traffic using Waterloo—

rose—

There are peaks of intercontinental traffic at the weekends. The greatest pressure of travel on British Rail Eurotunnel trains is likely to occur on Saturdays. It is therefore appropriate for British Rail to consider how that peak capacity on Saturdays can be handled.

I would not want to deter the Minister from supporting the new clause, although I am sure that nothing I say will persuade him. This is precisely the matter that I want to address. I am well aware of that point. I discussed it with British Rail.

One cannot compare chalk with cheese. What are the comparisons about which the Minister is talking? He is talking about peak tourist traffic in August, but is he also talking about current British Rail traffic? One cannot decide how future traffic will be generated by comparing a rail service that has to go by sea across the Channel with Channel tunnel traffic. In making that comparison, one is undermining the basis of the whole case for the Channel study. As Mr. Alexander said to me on the telephone today, "You know how most market forecasts are done— stick up a wet finger." That is almost what is happening. I appreciate British Rail's difficulties in evaluating market forecasts. I appreciate that the Minister may feel that he is seriously misled by a wet finger. I am not suggesting which finger, on which hand, held in what way or with what intent; but the reality is very similar to gestures that are commonly used. One can have no confidence in these projected figures.

I support the new clause. I believe that British Rail has considered this matter at length, certainly during the past year. My hon. Friend said that British Rail estimates traffic flow by simply taking a particular day in May or June. My hon. Friend is right—British Rail has been doing this from Land's End to John o'Groats. This example shows no departure from British Rail's normal procedures in establishing statistics.

I am sorry to hear that confirmation, because it undermines what little faith I have in British Rail's capacity to forecast traffic. I do not know whether that is acceptable to the hon. Member for Northfield, who believes in market forces adjusting supply and demand rather than in planning supply and demand. [Interruption.] I am willing to give way to the Secretary of State,

indicated dissent.

It is a pity to lose the point that the right hon. Gentleman was about to raise.

The breakdown in the number of Channel tunnel trains in the year 2003— 98 and 130— shows the great difference in the figures used by British Rail and Eurotunnel. The premise is that peak traffic will be absorbed during the peak vacation or holiday period and that Waterloo will be able to absorb spare capacity because of the decrease in commuter traffic. But that assumes that there will be spare capacity rather than that the Channel tunnel terminal will be a success.

I was interested to learn from my discussions with British Rail today that its latest midweek passenger figures are for 1982. They are five years out of date. We are planning a terminal with the throughput of Gatwick airport based on figures that are five years out of date. Talk about think of a number, subtract those who get off at Ashford, plump for the station thought of in the first place and the answer is Waterloo—that is almost the extent of the statistical basis used by British Rail in pursuing this case.

As I said shortly before the Minister intervened, according to the information that I received today from British Rail, which contrasts with its display on the technicolor boards at Waterloo, the average number of weekday passengers travelling through Waterloo at peak periods was 204,000 in 1971. It was, on average, between 190,000 and 195,000 between 1961 and 1973–74, 181,000 in 1975 and only 178,000 in the last year for which figures are available. That is much higher than the figures suggested by the misleading public display at Waterloo, which is substituting for ministerial answers. I suggest that the Minister obtains those figures. I am glad that a cooperative middle manager at British Rail has agreed to send me copies of the diagrams, the artwork and the figures on which the estimates are based. For this does not suggest a slump in commuter traffic from Waterloo. It suggests that there is much less spare capacity than the Government say. For example, still talking about the 1982 midweek passenger figures—

If we continue at this rate, they will be 1988 figures.

My hon. Friend will appreciate that, unfortunately, I did not have the advantage that he had of sitting on the Select Committee, the Standing Committee or other committees that may have dealt with this matter. [Interruption.] Changing one's mind is an act of intellectual imagination, of which I am sure the Minister is capable. But I trust that he will not change his mind but will listen to the figures. They will be the basis of a continuing debate about the feasibility and viability of Waterloo.

In 1982, the number of midweek passengers totalled 179,000. That is the base. If we then consider the additional passenger traffic generated at Waterloo, on British Rail's figures— I stress that I have excluded through trains from these figures because, obviously, they do not count for terminal purposes— there is an additional 62,000 for British Rail and an additional 83,000 on the 179,000 base from Eurotunnel. This is the crunch. If we put those two figures together, we get 241,000 of feasible traffic on the British Rail figures, and 262,000 feasible daily passenger traffic on the Eurotunnel figures. That is way in excess of the maximum passenger use of the peak for the whole of the post-war period of 204,000 daily passenger traffic.

In practice, this amounts to taking the high of the passenger commuter traffic and adding the type of capacity expansion that Eurotunnel hopes to achieve. The Minister may say that this does not take account of seasonal variations, but the figure is way in excess of the 1971 peak. In fact, it is 25 per cent. above peak post-war capacity as opposed to the 1 per cent. increase— the massaging of one's concern—that we heard earlier from British Rail. If the Minister were to say to me that this assumes a phenomenal success for the Channel tunnel because there will never be that volume of traffic, why does he not plan for a use of the tunnel that can generate that volume of traffic? One of the reasons he cannot do so at the moment is that he assumes that all the traffic will go through Waterloo.

If we get the higher figures, it will have major implications for, first, Customs and Excise, secondly, the underground, thirdly, taxis, fourthly, buses. Fifthly, it spells congestion. That is one reason why we have such little confidence in the figures given by British Rail in this matter. In other respects, the case for dispersal of Channel tunnel traffic is well established.

One of the problems about dispersal is whether there will be on-train customs inspections. It is a major issue. We appreciate that the Government will wish to take into account the view of trade unions in Customs and Excise matters. I hope that the Government will be able to persuade the trade unions of the merits of on-train customs inspections.

Certain anomalies arise. I have asked the Minister whether the French or the Belgians, for example, will have terminal facilities at their stations. It is an obvious question. They do not have terminal facilities at the moment. One may get on a train in Brussels and go to Paris. One may have a meal and take advantage of all those features that are so lauded by British Rail in some of its advertising, such as "Think of getting on a plane, stretching your legs, having a wider seat, a bigger window and a meal. We so much prefer the 7.27 to the 707 or the 747." In reality, that is what happens between Brussels and Paris. Will it also happen for British passengers arriving in Paris? Will there be a terminal in the Gare du Nord? It is a basic question. Will there be a terminal at the Gare du Nord for British passengers travelling through the Channel tunnel? The Minister does not appear to know. The probability is that French customs and excise would do the same as they have always done when anybody travels on one of their trains. There is no need for a terminal, therefore, or for the new see-through terminal at Waterloo. I say "see-through" advisedly. The terminal has no elevation, in physical terms. All the floors are of perspex. It is difficult to evaluate what stands where and the implications of the terminal. That is one reason why there will be a very lopsided Channel tunnel service.

I have said in previous debates that, if there is to be competition between rail and air transport, there must be on-train customs inspection. On 23 January 1987, I put down a question to the Secretary of State for Transport about whether the SNCF expects customs inspectors on Channel tunnel trains to travel further than Ashford in the pursuit of their duties and whether any Customs and Excise facilities will be operated at Ashford. That has a direct bearing on whether or not such facilities will be needed at Waterloo. I was told that no decisions had been taken about on-train controls for passengers or freight carried on through services, that French and United Kingdom customs are holding discussions with SNCF and British Rail respectively about controls and that, whatever the outcome of the discussions, there would be the familiar red-green arrangements for passengers terminating their journeys at Ashford or Waterloo. I do not think that there will be any familiar red-green arrangements at the Gare du Nord. If there are not, it will be a singular victory for common sense.

Allowing for the difficulties involved in achieving on-train customs inspection, there is a proposal to abolish all internal customs inspections within the EEC. There have been many EEC proposals in the last 25 years. I remember a proposal that called for a common industrial policy to complement the common agricultural policy. That has not seen the light of day. I remember a proposal for a common European statute. That has not seen the light of day, either.

It is just feasible and not beyond the bounds of imagination that we may not see the abolition of customs and excise within the EEC in the next five to seven years. But what if we do? What shall we do then with the great white elephant of a terminal at Waterloo? Shall we turn it back into a new Musee Pompidou? The old argument about French railways as they used to be was that, like insects, they had all their works on the outside. Perhaps our Waterloo terminal will be a Pompidou in reverse, since our trains always have their works on the inside. Perhaps we shall have a perspex see-through terminal. Next to the national arts complex, that could be quite appropriate, but it would not be very useful if the EEC had abolished internal customs and excise by the time it was completed.

It crosses my mind that perhaps there ought to be harmonisation of the length of speeches in the various Parliaments of Europe. Perhaps there ought to be a time limit, but it seems that that will not happen for a few years to come.

I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern about the length of my speech.

Reference has already been made to the article in The New Civil Engineer of 11 December 1986. It drew attention to the fact that for the first time the new Snowhill tunnel going via Blackfriars will lead to inter-city trains travelling right through London for the first time. If we consider that, we shall see that there is speculation—

Will my hon. Friend give way?

No, I am sorry. It may amaze my hoii. Friend, but I have had some encouragement to complete my brief remarks on the clause.

If that is the case, Blackfriars becomes a feasible station for people to alight in London. I should like to put the serious point to the Minister that, if we can shake off the flagship concept of a terminal, why is it not possible for people who want to alight in south London to do so, and for there to be three stops in London for through trains? Those who wish to get off in south London could get off at a south London station and those who wish to get off in central London could do so at Blackfriars, with through trains going on to north London and to the north of the country. Surely that is the most intelligent way to approach the matter.

I have already mentioned the implications of this proposal for the local environment and the damage that could result to the local environment in the Waterloo area. I have also discussed jobs and the fact that there is little expectation that the jobs will benefit those in the local community. I shall not reiterate those points, because they were put very well by representatives of the local community and the Waterloo development group in their submissions to the Select Committee. I trust that they will be able to put their case to the House of Lords, because they had so little time to put their case to the Committee about the impact of the proposals on the local environment.

Finally, the Department of the Environment—the oracle—has alleged that Lambeth has exaggerated the difficulties that the proposal will pose for its planning powers and that Lambeth will not be overridden. However, a circular from the Department of the Environment, reference No. LCM(86)6, states:

"In dealing with applications for planning permission local planning authorities shall have regard to the provisions of the current development plans, so far as material to the application, and to any other material considerations. Applications are considered on their merits. As emphasised in Circular 14/85, however, there is a presumption in favour of allowing applications for development."

That is of real concern to those in the local community and I am sure that I shall be able to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, on a future occasion to explain why.

My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) took 45 minutes for his speech. I hope that I shall take four and a half minutes.

I advise my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall that I do not think it possible for through trains to use Blackfriars station to go to the north of London because the tunnels are too small as one gets towards Kings Cross. My understanding is that the tunnels cannot be enlarged because of the pipes and other things in the ground in that area. If I am wrong, I shall be pleased to be corrected.

My hon. Friend is wrong.

That is fine. I look forward to the possibility of a conversation later to clear up that matter.

Without discussing Waterloo and whether it will be suitable as a terminus, like my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall, I completely support new clause 3 which is an important clause. We cannot leave this matter to market forces because it affects us all. The clause refers not only to freight, but to passengers. All of us in the House—indeed everybody in the country as a possible passenger—wish to know British Rail's plans so that we can comment upon them and suggest improvements to British Rail.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) said, British Rail talks to county councils and to local authorities. If those local authorities wish to invest and help British Rail to move more goods by rail they will need to know where and how to invest, and what the time scale should be. It is absolutely vital that that is not kept secret.

I completely disagree with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) that the matter should be left to a confidential study by British Rail. It must be open and we must know the facts—we are all on the same side in this matter—because we want to make the Channel tunnel the success that I am sure that it will be.

I am aware that the new clause is not written as I would have expected it to be if it had been drawn by parliamentary draftsmen. If the Minister cannot accept it now, I hope that he can say that he will introduce an appropriate clause in another place. I strongly urge the Government to accept the spirit of the new clause if they cannot accept its wording.

The Government fully support the objectives of the new clause. Throughout the passage of the Bill the Government have made clear their belief and intention that the Channel tunnel will benefit not just London and the south-east, but the whole of Great Britain. Likewise, British Rail has made abundantly clear its desire and intention to exploit the opportunities which the Channel tunnel will open up to provide improved services to a variety of destinations.

While British Rail needs to provide a terminal in London to cater for passengers who want to travel to and from London, it is also planning to run direct services to the midlands and the north. These services will avoid central London by using the west London line. Those services will then join the existing radial routes out of London to other destinations. The exact pattern of services has still to be determined. It will depend on British Rail's assessment of the likely pattern of demand. In broad terms, British Rail expects about 20 to 25 per cent. of its passengers through the tunnel to use the direct services to stations beyond London.

British Rail expects to run direct freight services between points throughout Britain and centres in mainland Europe. It believes that freight customers in the midlands, the north and Scotland will stand to benefit particularly from these developments. Rail freight services become particularly attractive for distances over 200 miles and the opening of the tunnel will create enormous new opportunities. There will be time savings of between 24 and 48 hours and it will be possible for freight forwarders to avoid the costs of transferring freight to and from ships.

As in the case of passenger services, the exact pattern of the services to be provided has yet to be determined.

rose—

I shall come to the hon. Gentleman's remarks in a moment.

The services will depend on British Rail's assessment of the likely pattern of demand. British Rail is at present collaborating with Eurotunnel in a regional survey of trade and industry. The survey has my full support. Its aims are to ensure that companies throughout the United Kingdom are fully informed of the exciting opportunities which the tunnel will create for them and to ascertain Britain's likely demand for transport services in the 1990s so that they can be taken into account in planning British Rail services and the infrastructure needed to support them.

I appreciate that there are pressures on the Minister, as there are on me, and that it may not be possible for him to reply in detail to my points. Nevertheless, he will appreciate that they were made with considerable seriousness because those questions had not been answered by British Rail. There is a great deal of confusion about what will happen. Will the Minister assure me that within the week he will seek to give me written answers to my questions?

If the hon. Gentleman could just contain himself, not for as long as his speech but until I reach that part of my speech, I shall deal with his questions.

As part of the process of planning these services British Rail will determine where best to establish new freight collection and distribution centres and where it would be advantageous to have inland customs clearance facilities. Obviously, these facilities must satisfy the throughput and operational criteria established by the customs authorities.

There is already a great deal of work planned or already under way involving British Rail and its various consultants and experts to achieve the objectives of new clause 3. The merit of the new clause is that it will put British Rail's plans firmly on the public record and increase public awareness of the opportunities that they would offer. That is something that the Government would welcome, and I understand that the board would not be opposed to it.

Hon. Members will have heard the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland)—

I wish to ask a question on the criterion for inland customs facilities. If I heard the Minister correctly, he said that there has been no discussion about the entries that are necessary for inland customs. At present I believe the criterion to be 30,000. If there is no movement on that criterion, it will be extremely difficult for British Rail to match those entries. Was I correct in hearing the Minister say that the criterion will remain the same at 30,000 entries?

I did not say that they would remain the same. I said that they were matters for the Customs and Excise. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) has made a point which must be taken into account, and I will consider it further and write to him.

The hon. Member for Vauxhall raised two principal questions at the start of his speech and he embroidered them during his remarks. He asked whether British Rail has made proper forward plans and whether it had consulted. The hon. Gentleman's concern over consultation led him to ask me some months ago if I would arrange for consultation with the local community and particularly with representatives from Lambeth council and the associated boroughs that had problems. I did that. I invited representatives from Vauxhall, Lambeth, the neighbouring boroughs and all the London boroughs which would be affected by British Rail's plans to come to a joint consultation meeting in the same way as I have had successful joint consultation meetings in Kent.

In Kent, we sat down together and cross-examined British Rail. We considered the facts and sought a consensus. All the time we tried to maximise the advantages and to minimise the disadvantages for those who would be affected.

The joint consultation meetings in Kent have proceeded on a constructive and useful basis. A lot of information has been brought out from British Rail about its operational difficulties. I am astonished that the hon. Member for Vauxhall should have the effrontery to make a speech in which he claimed that there has been a lack of consultation. How can he be so out of touch? I held meetings. At the first of the meetings, I invited representatives of the local authorities concerned to spell out their anxieties. At the second meeting, I arranged an agenda that would enable the authorities to question British Rail and have discussions about the very points which the hon. Member for Vauxhall has raised today. What happened? Councillor Colenutt of Lambeth council led a politically inspired walkout because I would not turn the consultation committee into a public meeting in the borough.

Will the Minister give way?

Just let me finish.

The way in which that politically inspired walkout was carried out is something which I hope that the hon. Gentleman will apologise for. It was an absolute disgrace. Many people, including Ministers, officials, and Departments, came together to enable the cross-examination which the hon. Member for Vauxhall has asked for to take place. However, the political walkout was organised by the council representive for Lambeth.

Will the Minister give way?

I have not finished yet.

The hon. Member for Vauxhall raised the question of Victoria as an alternative and he wanted to know what the costs would be. That is the kind of question that I would have liked to have heard raised at a consultation meeting for cross-examination with British Rail. It would have been useful for British Rail to be under pressure from different ideas and lines of attack which I might not have thought of. However, that opportunity was lost.

All the points that the hon. Member for Vauxhall raised today could perfectly legitimately and properly have been dealt with at a consultation meeting. He could have raised his questions about buses, taxis and coach access to Waterloo. Far from having ignored those problems, British Rail has used Alexander Gibb and Partners as consultants to provide advice and guidance about how to improve the traffic patterns. That would solve the problem that is worrying the hon. Member for Vauxhall.

The hon. Member for Vauxhall referred to Waterloo as a bottleneck. He has failed to recognise that the morning peak hour commuter traffic at Waterloo will be over by the time that the first trains arrive after their three and a half hour journey from Paris with their flood of passengers. They will not coincide in a way that might lead to the problem about which the hon. Gentleman is worried.

The Minister did not put it to the House that Lambeth council and local community groups wanted terms of reference for the inquiry that would compare with the public inquiry. They were not able to obtain that. Secondly, and far more importantly in terms of the rights of hon. Members, the Minister may be unaware or have forgotten that I have put the question as the elected Member for the constituency time and again on the Floor of the House and he has constantly referred me to British Rail. British Rail has not answered the questions. It is a secondary matter as to whether his consultation with local community groups and Lambeth council succeeded or did not succeed—I suspect that there are two sides to that. He has not answered my questions here on the Floor of the House. He has passed me on to British Rail, which has failed to answer my questions, or has announced them to the press without even informing me when it is taking place. That comes damn near to contempt of the House.

I remind the hon. Gentleman that matters for British Rail should be addressed to British Rail. What was unique about the opportunity provided by the joint consultation committee, out of which his friends walked, was that they would have had the opportunity to cross-examine British Rail. British Rail's representatives would have been there, as would the people with whom we are dealing and planning the Channel tunnel link in relation to its London terminal. They could have been cross-examined. Indeed, after the walkout they were cross-examined by others who remained, on aspects affecting the other boroughs concerned. Lambeth's representatives walked out and lost the opportunity. That is a shame, and it is a shame that the hon. Gentleman is not on his feet apologising for what happened.

rose—

I have dealt with the hon. Gentleman. Other hon. Members have asked questions with which I wish to deal.

The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) rightly drew attention to the effect of increased productivity in lorry transportation on the distance that one has to go by rail with freight in order to be able to compete successfully. The hon. Gentleman has much experience of the railways and he is right to say that the figures have been getting bigger. He suggested that they were up to 250 miles. That is a little too high, but one can certainly see the trend. The Channel tunnel is important because it will make those long distances available to British Rail and give it the opportunity to compete successfully with the lorry in so many cases going to continental markets. British Rail now estimates that 1,000 lorries a day will be taken off the road. I am sure that that is something we would all welcome.

The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East queried the adequacy of the funds available to British Rail for investment. I would put one question to him. Can he tell me one viable project that British Rail has put forward for investment that I have turned down? Can he tell me one, not dozens? I think that he will have difficulty finding one.

The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) fears that sidings will be taken up where they are needed. When I was in Middlesbrough a while ago, standing in the tower overlooking the huge, old-fashioned Middlesbrough freight depot with Colin Driver, the sector director of British Rail, I cross-examined him on that matter. I asked him what would be the pattern of his inland clearance depots and the pattern of his freight depots for maximising the advantages to British Rail of the Channel tunnel. He said that it was too early to give the details. I pressed him further and asked when I could expect to have them. He said that he thought that by July of this year he would be in a position to give me his initial indication of what the pattern might be.

I know that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) has a special interest because he and his council and others have raised on a number of occasions what that pattern might be. My advice to the House is that one can expect that pattern to emerge next summer. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) recognised the advantages of longer distance. He said that once the tunnel is in operation there will be substantial benefits for car manufacturers in Birmingham and other places further north. My hon. Friend is absolutely right and has put his finger on a crucial matter. British exporters and manufacturers now suffer the disadvantage of dragging their goods across the Channel, with double handling at each end. When the Channel tunnel is open they will be able to have a timetable for delivery in 24 hours to any major centre on the continent. I have much sympathy with what my hon. Friend has said, but there are certain difficulties with the clause as drafted, which the hon. Member for Wrexham recognises.

Parliamentary counsel has drawn our attention to oddities in the wording of the clause. I shall not detail them fully, but in one respect the clause seems inexplicably weak. As it is drafted, the board is not required to prepare any plan until just before its scheduled works are open to traffic, perhaps not until 1992. The Government believe that the clause could be much more beneficial if it required the board to produce its first plan well before the opening time. We also need to think about how long the duty upon British Rail to produce up-dated plans should continue. In short, the Government believe that this clause should be improved significantly. We therefore undertake to bring forward in the other place a new clause based closely upon new clause 3 but with the improvements and clarifications that I have just outlined. I hope that on that basis the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw the clause.

The House will be grateful for some of the things that the Minister has said. I cannot understand how his drafting experts say that the new clause 3 names any specific dates such as 1992, because it does not. It says:

"before their scheduled works are open for traffic"

That does not pin anybody down to 1992, but we would be grateful for small mercies.

That is the trouble. It does not say that it has to be done in July next year or the year after that or at any other time. It leaves it totally vague over seven years. I am sure the hon. Gentleman agrees that that is not his intention.

In that case, I understand and appreciate what the hon. Gentleman is saying. He has challenged me to name one private project for investment that he had failed to approve. The House is aware, but it will do no harm to remind hon. Members on both sides, that none of those projects which he has approved—East coast main line electrification, locomotive orders, mark IV rolling stock, driving car trailers for the west coast mainline—means any extra money. They are all generated from the British Railways Board's own resources by the sale of assets and by cutting down services in other areas.

It is a distortion of the facts for the Minister to pretend that he is the King Midas of British Rail. Not a penny of new money has come from the Government towards any of these projects. Sooner or later British Rail will run out of assets to sell, and it is devoted to running down the assets it has. When it has peddled all there is to peddle, we shall test the strength of the commitment of the Minister of State and that of his right hon. Friend to British Rail by saying, "Its coffers are exhausted. Will you replenish them or not?" It is to be hoped that there will be a general election before then and we shall not have to worry.

That is right. The hon. Gentleman will not have to worry. He will still be sitting there.

I am glad that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) has given us that little chirrup to remind us of his return to the Chamber. Despite the praise lavished on him by the Minister of State, the House should not overlook the fact that the hon. Member for Northfield, in his normally ignorant and silly way as far as these matters are concerned, actually spoke against the clause. He asked who needs a clause like this when all we need is a siding here and there. Just spend a few bob and send in a crane. What sort of railway system does the hon. Gentleman think we have in the latter part of this decade?

He told us that his main reason for joining the Conservative party was that he was against the late George Brown's national plan in the 1960s. I have heard worse reasons for joining the Conservative party but not many. I suppose that if one needs a good excuse to join the Tory party that one is as good as any that could be put forward. I can only conclude that the hon. Gentleman's knowledge of railway matters began and ended on the day that he made his commitment to join the Tory party. Rail freight has moved on a bit and one siding and one crane is not the sort of facility that we envisage in new clause 3, the provisions of which were wisely accepted by his hon. Friend the Minister of State.

Some 2 per cent. of British Rail freight and 27 per cent. of the freight carried by SNCF is international. The purpose of the new clause is to bring those two percentages somewhat closer together. Because of geography, unless we can join British Rail's freight network to the rest of the continent that imbalance will be perpetuated. I am grateful to the Minister for much of what he said and especially for his acceptance of the commitments inherent in the new clause. I understand that he will bring forward, as he puts it in his modest way, an even better clause in another place. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this it will be convenient to consider new clause 6—Disposal of surplus spoil—

'(1) The Secretary of State and the Concessionaires shall arrange for an independent study to be carried out in order to determine the best means of disposing of surplus spoil produced as a result of the construction of the tunnels referred to in section 1(7)(a) of this Act.

(2) In this section "surplus spoil" means spoil which is intended to be disposed of in the United Kingdom, other than the one million tons to be deposited at Cheriton, Folkestone in connection with the construction of the terminal referred to in section 1(7)(b) of this Act.'.

New clause 7—Restriction on carrying out certain environmentally sensitive development—

'(1) Notwithstanding that planning permission has been, or is deemed to have been granted under Part III of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, the Concessionaires shall not, within the Shakespeare Cliff Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, carry out any development in connection with the construction or operation of the tunnel system, unless that development—

(a) consists of the construction of any of their scheduled works; or

(b) has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

(2) In this section "development" has the same meaning as in the said Act of 1971.'.

I shall concentrate my brief remarks on paragraph (ii) of the new clause, the carriage of minestone and other bulk substances from sources in Kent by rail

"to the greatest extent practicable".

The other matters in the new clause are

"flora, fauna and geological or physiographical features of special interest,".

I pray in aid the assistance of my expert hon. Friend the Member for the rolling and green uplands of Fulham (Mr. Raynsford) who will entertain the House as he entertained the Committee about this part of the clause.

Those of us who served on the Select Committee on the Channel Tunnel Bill and the Standing Committee will be aware of the importance that the people of Kent attach to the problem of curbing the number of heavy goods vehicles that would be unleashed on Kent roads as a result of this project. Hon. Members on both Committees did what they could to see that as much bulk material as possible was carried by rail in order to reduce the amount of nuisance spoken about at great length by an understandably enormous number of petitioners to the Select Committee.

The Select Committee drew to the attention of local planning authorities and parish councils the likely difficulties that would be caused by the transport of minestone and other bulk fill material. Early in the sittings of the Committee we managed to get an undertaking from the concessionaires that initially all the minestone would be carried by rail. Many petitioners said that a loaded juggernaut is an environmental intrusion whether it is carrying minestone or any other bulk material. To that end, the Committee sought to reopen the matter with the concessionaires. I think that it was on the last day of our public hearings that a supplementary paper on this matter prepared by Eurotunnel was presented to us.

The concessionaires suggested that, in order to increase the proportion of bulk materials to be carried by rail, a railhead might be built a relatively short distance from the terminal with immediate access to the M20, so that lorries would complete the transport of bulk materials to the working sites along the motorway rather than by ordinary roads. We were aware that that assurance conflicted with the earlier assurance to which I have referred that minestone would be moved only by rail. However, the Select Committee rightly felt that the priority was that as little bulk material as possible should be carried by lorries along the ordinary roads of the area. For that reason, the majority of the Select Committee accepted the compromise, and that was behind the drafting of new clause 4.

9.45 pm

There will be difficulties even if, as we hope, the Minister accepts the provisions of the new clause. Both Committees involved in the Bill expect Kent county council to exercise its powers to ensure that as few lorries as possible carry bulk materials by any other road than the M20 to the working sites. The Select Committee emphasised the importance of Kent county council actively enforcing the regime that is agreed with Eurotunnel and its contractors so that it can be made to work properly.

In commending this new clause to the House, I express the hope that it will be possible for lorries engaged on this particular project to be clearly marked in order that their movement can be effectively policed by the residents in the area whose environment and lifestyle will be considerably disturbed if the provisions of the agreement between the concessionaires and the planning authority are not adequately adhered to.

I hope that the Minister will look as sympathetically on new clause 4 as he did on new clause 3, and if he feels that new clause 4 needs strengthening in a similar way to the previous clause, I can assure him of the Opposition's full co-operation, because we are as anxious as I am sure that he and other Ministers in the Department are to see that, while this scheme progresses, the environment of the people of Kent is adequately protected at all times.

When the Bill was considered in Standing Committee I was interested in the constant reference to the Shakespeare cliff and the constant reference by my hon. Friend the Minister of State to Edgar in King Lear. It was picked up, followed and even distorted a bit by the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Raynsford). I have sat here the live-long day to make one short intervention on a matter which has concerned me for all the time that we have talked about the Channel tunnel. The House and my constituents know that I have been a supporter of the tunnel, and in some ways they have been dismayed by that. Some of my colleagues immediately around me representing the county of Kent have been dismayed at my enthusiasm for the tunnel.

I shall say something briefly about environmental considerations. New clause 4 is about nature conservation and amenities, and it attracts me. I am not wise enough with words—unlike a craftsman—to say whether the clause is well drafted or strong enough. The last clause came in for some criticism from my right hon. Friend the Minister in that regard. I like the wording of the clause, particularly the first paragraph, because it covers all of my worries and anxieties, and those of my constituents as well as the great majority of people who live in Kent, whether they welcome the tunnel or whether they do not want the tunnel. What they are concerned about is that if we build it we should not destroy what has often been called the garden of England. It is somewhat wrongly named. It is the hop garden of England, not necessarily the beautiful garden of England, but that has come to be the term used to describe Kent, and it is a good one, too.

As we proceed with this great engineering project, I do not want to see the sort of disastrous environmental mistakes that we made between the wars. I can remember the building of the Great West road out of London. It was a great idea to have a good exit from London, but we allowed industrial development to sprawl all along it. I remember the Firestone factory being built. I remember it being nearly destroyed recently, but today it is a building of industrial architectural interest.

In this day and age, when we embark on a major engineering project—this is the biggest in Europe this century—we must get it right, not only in engineering and economic terms—those have been considered in great detail by the House, in Select Committee and in Standing Committee, and rightly so—but environmentally. We can build something big that is economically advantageous, but we could in the process destroy the environment which makes Kent attractive. That is the first sight of England for the visitor from the continent. If we are not careful, we could destroy that. We could allow London to sprawl out all the way down to Folkestone if we are not careful.

In a loose moment the former Secretary of State for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), told me that my people in Kent need not worry because 100,000 jobs would be created one day. I think that that might be so and I know that that causes dismay in some quarters of the House. Some hon. Members from the north, Scotland and elsewhere fear that the tunnel will be such a magnet that those 100,000 jobs will be a reality in perhaps 30 years' time. I shall not complain, but it will raise problems in other parts of the country, which I respect.

However, I shall complain bitterly if we allow the Bill to go forward without some real protection for our environment and amenities, and we could do so. I have here the briefing papers from Eurotunnel which contain several hundred paragraphs, yet there are only 24 words out of thousands from the engineers on the environment. That is not good enough for me. The Bill runs to 100 pages, yet I cannot find one clause out of the 47, and not one schedule, which covers this important need.

I know that my hon. Friend the Minister and the Secretary of State are not far behind me in supporting the need to protect the environment. I know that the House feels that we must do that. But somehow, in the welter of words that have gone to make up discussion on the Bill, it seems to have been left out of the record. I have studied some of the Committee reports and I have noticed how reference to the environment emerged on the first day. The hon. Member for Fulham raised it and my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) also spoke about it. But they referred essentially to what might happen to Shakespeare cliff if the spoil was deposited there.

I am concerned about what the rich industrial spoil of industrial growth might do to Kent. That is what I want to see protection against. I do not want to lose the flora and fauna and architectural and archeaological interest that exists in Kent today. There is an enormous amount of history there. In my constituency, one can see, if one searches, where Caesar stood at Harbledown, north of Canterbury, and realised that he was on his way to victory. In another part of Kent one can see where the Duke of Normandy landed and went on to conquer our country. One can see those places over the border perhaps in Hastings, but one can see reminders of the landing in Sandwich Bay, too.

I do not want to lose those things and I am sure that we can protect them. There are so many words in the briefing on economic aspects, on employment aspects, on the market for the tunnel, on the link of the British and French rail networks, on land acquisition and compensation, on safety and fire-fighting. Those are all terribly important points. Protection against rabies is mentioned, security, frontier controls, control and protection against the illegal movement of drugs, ventilation and so on.

However, unfortunately, there is no mention in the Bill of environmental protection, except perhaps right at the very end in schedule 7 which contains a list of seven protective provisions for highways, for the railway board, for navigation, for the Dover harbour board, for the statutory authorities, the water authorities, gas, electricity and sewerage, for the Folkestone and District water company and for telecommunications operators. There was a chance to put in a provision to protect the environment. So why was it not put in?

Developers, engineers, concessionaires, builders and planners can and do and have in the past run ahead with their great profits and forgotten about the environment. As a supporter of the tunnel I may have dismayed my constituents, but their main concern all along has been its effect on the environment. I have argued that it is possible to have a modern engineering project and protect the environment. Of course the tunnel will change the environment at the terminal at Cheriton outside Folkestone which is in the immediate vicinity of the tunnel. The tunnel will take 350 acres of land.

The M20 that will lead to the tunnel will be a six-lane motorway. It will no doubt be like the M25 today, packed with traffic, but at least the traffic will be funnelled to the tunnel and concentrated there rather than sprawling on many other roads to that terminal.

This Bill should say something to engineers and concessionaires about protecting the environment as they go along. The Minister and the Secretary of State have frequently stated their interest in this matter. I am sure that the Minister is determined that the environment should be protected. An environment protection requirement should be laid on Eurotunnel in this Bill. I commend this new clause. Whether it is sufficiently well drafted I do not know, but it would do the trick. if my hon. Friend the Minister thinks that it should perhaps be made even stricter, new provisions should be written into the Bill and it should be taken on board in the other place too if it is neglected here. It is an important matter. The whole of the people of Kent would welcome that addition and they would say "Parliament at least stood up for us and for the environment. Parliament protected us. We may not agree with some of the things that Parliament and Government have decided and the fact that Parliament decided to endorse what the Government proposed, but here is something important which we, the people of Kent, have been saying all along. We want protection of our environment which we think is good."

This will perhaps be my last song about the Channel tunnel, the Eurotunnel, but I have made an important point.

The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) rightly focused on the importance of environmental issues. He may have rather underestimated the extent to which they featured in the work of the Standing Committee. Shakespeare cliff alone was not debated. There were repeated and frequent debates on environmental issues, mostly initiated by Labour Members but with the support of the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken). They were not successful because repeatedly, in Division after Division, the Government showed themselves reluctant to accept amendments which were designed to protect the environment from some of the worst effects of this scheme.

We saw that with the impact on the villages of Newington and Frogholt, on the site of special interest along the north downs escarpment, with the protection of Holywell coombe and Dollands moor, and with a large number of other sites—not only in Kent, but equally in London. It is wrong to suggest that environmental matters relate only to Kent. People in London greatly value their access to relatively small areas of natural land where they can follow the interests—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Many people in the London area greatly value the opportunity to make use of areas of natural landscape, where they can follow their interests in birds, flora and fauna. Indeed, one of the small crumbs of comfort in Committee was a minor amendment, eventually conceded by the Government with rather had grace, designed to protect the interests of wildlife in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley). Owing to the painstaking and meticulous work of a 16-year-old boy, an extraordinary report was put together on the extent, variety and richness of wildlife in that rather surprising and unpromising area.

Many of those who fought for the environmental issues in Committee were conscious that Eurotunnel was showing little interest in protecting the landscape and environment from the adverse impact of its plans. We know of the enormous struggle that it took to make it accept the logic of a southern access route to the Cheriton terminal, which would greatly minimise environmental damage. Despite all the efforts of local people and the Shepway council, Eurotunnel dragged its heels to the last minute, reluctant to accept the case for an environmentally far superior approach. My anxiety about Eurotunnel's attitude remains strong today.

A matter of even greater concern has been the evidence not so much of the way in which Eurotunnel has subordinated the interests of the landscape and our natural heritage to its economic and financial advantage, but the Government's unwillingness to stand up for a British nature, heritage and natural landscape and protect it against the ravages of Eurotunnel. It has been depressing to watch, time and again, the Government preferring to support Eurotunnel short-term economic advantages rather than ensuring that the landscape and the environment are properly protected.

No greater example of that can there be than the sad story of Shakespeare cliff, which illustrates only too clearly the extent to which private capital seeking financial advantage pushes the interests of our countryside and coastline into a subordinate position. The Government., quite, deplorably, have gone along with that and failed to stand up for British interests.

It is widely accepted that there is a need for a working platform at Shakespeare cliff. However, from the outset it was said that that platform should be kept to the minimum size necessary. Serious environmental damage will be caused by any extension of the platform. That point was made both in the economic appraisal of the schemes submitted by the various companies which tendered for the fixed link and by the Government's independent consultants appointed to consider the matter. They recommended that an alternative site should be explored for dumping all the spoil, other than that which was necessary for the minimum size working platform. They also recommended that there should be a proper feasibility study carried out of the alternative sites. The Government did not take up that recommendation. Instead, the Government simply allowed Eurotunnel to commission a report from Eurotunnel's consultants that inevitably recommended that it was financially advantageous for Eurotunnel to dump the rest of the spoil—approximately 1·85 million cubic metres—at the base of Shakespeare cliff. It will treat the area as a dump for the chalk spoil, dug out of the tunnel, to be deposited simply for financial reasons, irrespective of the impact on the coast line.

It was a question not just of Eurotunnel allowing private greed to get in the way of the public interest but of the British Government going along with its recommendations. That is depressing.

What is even more depressing is that, during the Committee stage, we discovered the extent to which the British Government were prepared to have a far greater amount of spoil dug out of the tunnel than the French. It emerged in Committee that Britain would receive 4·75 million cubic metres of spoil while the French would receive 3 million cubic metres of spoil. That is the result of the Government's willingness to allow an arrangement which would be disadvantageous to this country and, beyond that, their willingness for that dumping to take place where it will have damaging environmental effects on the coastline at Shakespeare cliff.

The clear implication was that the meeting point of the tunnel was not midway through the tunnel as has had been implied initially. There would not be a roughly equivalent amount of spoil dug out at each end—as implied in the original prospectus published by Eurotunnel. The game plan had changed. It was to Eurotunnel's financial advantage to dump spoil at Shakespeare cliff and the British Government ignored the interest of the environment and simply allowed it to proceed to dump greater amounts of spoil on our coastline.

One of the more illuminating experiences in Committee was the extent to which the mid-point of the tunnel was getting nearer and nearer to the French end with every ministerial pronouncement. We heard that the meeting point would be slightly nearer to the French coast. The Minister conceded this on 11 December when he said that the maximum distance would be 2 km nearer the French coast. He said:

"I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the maximum… is 2 kilometres".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 11 December 1986; c. 128.]

However, by 16 December the Minister was conceding that the meeting point was 3·2 km nearer the French side than the British side. We were left with the impression that, if the Committee had continued to discuss the meeting point, it would have got nearer until it reached the French coast.

That may be rather humorous, but not when one considers the question of the spoil to be deposited on our coastline. However, ultimately national interests have been surrendered to Eurotunnel's economic advantage. The fact is that it would cost Eurotunnel an extra £40 million to move the spoil to a more environmentally desirable place elsewhere. What is sad and depressing is that the financial interests of the private contractors have overruled the national interest. What is even more depressing is that the Government have not stood up for those national interests.

This new clause is essential as it makes clear our concern for the countryside, our national heritage, landscape, flora and fauna, not just in Kent but in London. These are important matters which must override the short-term economic interest of Eurotunnel. It is our responsibility to stand up for the national interest in a way that the Government have lamentably failed to do during the proceedings on the Bill. I sincerely hope that we will ensure that this clause, or something similar to it, is incorporated in the Bill.

It is never too late for deathbed repentances. For that reason, I hope that the Government will accept the thinking behind the new clause, even though they managed to reject, with bewildering stubborness, a range of environmental protection amendments which were proposed in reasonable and moderate terms in Standing Committee.

I am a little concerned about whether new clause 4 is a clause of good intentions that will lead nowhere and mean nothing. I should like to know what happens if the concessionaires do not

"have regard to the desirability of preserving natural beauty"

and other good intentions. They have not expressed much inclination so far to show their good regard. They have produced only 24 words out of several hundred thousand in their pamphlets. I am concerned that the new clause may not have enough teeth. I am worried about the vagueness of the definition of, for example, "heritage coast of Kent". Although I am a resident of Kent, I am not sure exactly where the "heritage coast" can be said to begin and to end and I doubt whether that is an appropriate legal expression. Nevertheless, the new clause is well intentioned. It remedies the appalling gaps left in environmental protection because of the Government's refusal to take on board any of the amendments suggested in Standing Committee or by the Select Committee. This measure is a marked improvement.

I understand why the Labour party might feel it necessary to propose the new clause—to throw a sop in the direction of the people of Kent. I do not begrudge Labour Members their one amazing success in Standing Committee when, late at night, they persuaded the Government to accept an amendment insisting that the concessionaires and others should take into account the views of a hitherto unknown body, the London Wildlife Trust, about a patch of land encased by three railway lines and two motorways and overlooked by Wormwood Scrubs prison.

The hon. Gentleman should be less modest. It was agreed by the Government not just at the Opposition's instigation but because of the hon. Gentleman's enthusiastic support.

I know a bandwagon when I see one.

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he did not vote for this measure because he was under the impression that it was the London Nightlife Trust?

My night life recently has been spent listening to the hon. Gentleman speak at about 3 o'clock in the morning or later.

The prisoners of Wormwood Scrubs have been granted a measure of environmental protection by the Bill as amended in Standing Committee, yet so far the law-abiding citizens of Kent. with the garden of England stretching before them, have been granted no such environmental protection. My cry is, "Equal rights for the citizens of Kent as for the prisoners of Wormwood Scrubs." The prisoners are being indirectly consulted on environmental matters and so should the people of Kent.

New clause 4 has been grouped with new clauses 6 and 7, which stand in my name and which are probing measures. Because both were debated so well in Standing Committee, they need not be considered at great length. Before we conclude our consideration of the Bill, we should be aware of the murky—perhaps even monkey—business of the switched consultants who so conveniently changed their minds on the vital issue of the disposal of spoil at Shakespeare cliff. The Government originally commissioned a firm of consultants to advise them on that crucial environmental issue. The consultants, who were called "land use consultants", came up with three recommended sites for spoil disposal. None of them involved Shakespeare cliff. The selected site was a place called Lappel bank. It was an admirable site in terms of the environment, but, unfortunately for land use consultants, it was not convenient from the point of view of the economic interests of Eurotunnel who found it more expensive to transport disposed spoil to that recommended site.

10.15 pm

With a deft manoeuvre, Eurotunnel commissioned some consultants of its own, called Messrs. Environmental Research Ltd. That firm produced a report that—surprise, surprise—recommended that the spoil be disposed of at the cheapest possible site in the interests of Eurotunnel, Shakespeare cliff. So, Shakespeare cliff it is at the moment, and an eyesore it will be—a 68-acre protuberance on one of the most beautiful landmarks in Britain as a result of the switched consultants' manoeuvre. The Select Committee did not think much of this manoeuvring. Its unanimous recommendation states:

"The Committee remain concerned at implications of the use of Shakespeare cliff as the spoil disposal site. We therefore recommend that Her Majesty's Government and Eurotunnel should re-examine the use of alternative or additional sites before proceedings on this Bill are completed."

So far, if there has been any reconsideration, it has been an empty ritual. Therefore, I strongly urge—if I am able to do so from the Government Back Bench—the other place to look again at the issue of spoil disposal. I see no good reason why, on the basis of one hired consultant cancelling out the recommendation of the Government's own consultants, Parliament should vote for a major environmental change on one of the most beautiful and picturesque landmarks of the country. The matter needs to be studied. I strongly suspect that there has been a degree of dirty work or, certainly dirty spoil, at the crossroads so far over the business of the switched consultants. The matter needs to be looked at afresh by a new pair of independent eyes. Independent consultants should come on to the scene and make recommendations. I hope that is achieved by this new clause.

New clause 7 refers to potential buildings and changes on Shakespeare cliff. This is the first big battle outside Parliament over development and planning permission. There are a number of courageous councillors in the Dover district council. Dover has two parliamentary representatives. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Rees) represents that town, and I represent some of the villagers in the town of Sandwich in the Dover district. Eurotunnel submitted its first planning application, and the Dover district council rejected it on honourable environmental grounds. I salute the mover of that motion, Councillor Bill Henderson of Ash. He is a stalwart farmer who has always strongly defended the environment and all things Kentish and English. I am not surprised that his motion carried the day.

In the course of the Standing Committee proceedings, my hon. Friend the Minister made an imputation against the worthy councillors of Dover. He said that they had ratted on some agreement. I can only assure him, after noting what Councillor Bill Henderson said, that there was no question of him or any others being aware of any previous agreement. If there were any such agreement. it was unauthorised in terms of the knowledge of the elected councillors.

It is a potentially unhappy situation. The Government referred to it as a mere hitch. I referred to it as a derailment of the Eurotunnel gravy train. The truth probably lies somewhere between the two. It will certainly be serious for Eurotunnel if the clause is not amended and if wiser counsels do not prevail. Therefore I have written into the new clause a provision whereby, if Dover district council, the Government and Eurotunnel continue to quarrel, their quarrel will be resolved on such an important issue as Shakespeare cliff by the decision of this House.

Eurotunnel has not helped matters by making an extraordinary announcement about one of its economic plans. In the Financial Times of 22 January there was an article under the headline

"Eurotunnel more hopeful on revenue."

It needs to be more hopeful on revenue, given its disastrous economic position, with directors quarrelling and shareholders vanishing in a puff of white smoke. In a desperate attempt to shore up shareholder confidence, Eurotunnel announced a new break through as a way of increasing advertising revenue. Under the headline to which I have already referred it said:

"One way of increasing revenue would be through the sale of advertising sites."

That announcement sent a tremor through the environmentalists of Kent. The notion that Eurotunnel's finances could be boosted by erecting more advertising sites all round the county of Kent, particularly on such beautiful sites as Shakespeare cliff, completely justifies the environmentalists' concern. That is one good reason why Dover district councillors, who are perturbed by the environmental eyesores that could be created, have taken such a courageous stand.

If Dover district council and the Government continue to quarrel, their quarrel is likely to be resolved by an appeal to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. The only problem is that the present Secretary of State for the Environment is the proud father of the Channel tunnel project. My right hon. Friend could hardly be expected to sit in impartial judgment on a planning application that could hold up Eurotunnel's progress if that application is not granted swiftly. To expect my right hon. Friend effectively to be the appellate body would be a breach of the rule of natural justice that no man shall be judge in his own cause.

Clause 7 would provide a solution to this problem. The House of Commons and Parliament would vote on such a vital issue as the Shakespeare cliff area of outstanding natural beauty. That is not a perfect solution, but it is a great deal better than the present imperfect solution over the impasse between Eurotunnel and Dover district council with the impasse being resolved only by an appeal to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State who, fine and honourable man though he is, is the most committed of people to the Channel tunnel.

The three new clauses try to do their bit towards preserving the environment. It is a necessary step. I hope that the Government will move in the direction of new clause 4 and improve its drafting in another place. All three new clauses are laudable in their intention and I commend them to the House.

I intervene with diffidence in the debate, since I was not privileged to be a member of the Standing Committee. In this connection, I pay an unsolicited tribute to the activities of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), who, not for the first time, proved to be a doughty upholder of the interests of east Kent and of my constituency in particular. I hope that it is not arrogant of me to say that of all the constituencies represented in the House, mine is the one that is perhaps most directly affected by what we are debating tonight.

Oh!

I beg the pardon of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). He and I will resolve elsewhere who has the melancholy privilege of representing the constituency most directly affected. Assiduous as always in discharging his constituency duties, my hon. and learned Friend has been sitting through the debates, and we are only sorry that on this occasion constitutional convention prevents him from making a more direct contribution.

I hope that I may comment briefly on the three new clauses. We are debating new clause 4 which stands in the name of the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape). Without sounding patronising, I should like to say that his sentiments are impeccable, although the direction is a little imprecise. However, I warmed to the conclusion of that new clause, which invites all those who are directly concerned to have regard to

"the effect of any such proposals on the heritage coast of Kent."

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South, I am not quite certain who represents the heritage coast. Again, presumptuously, I claim the greater part of it in the Dover and Deal constituency, but again I may be provoking my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe.

I come now to the second specific proposal in new clause 4, which touches on

"the desirability of securing that … the movement of minestone … shall be carried out by rail."

That alarms me because it suggests that the assurance, which I understood was given to the Select Committee by Eurotunnel, to the effect that minestone would be carried by rail, is not to be regarded as a copper-bottomed, comprehensive guarantee. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will advise us how he regards the status of that guarantee. It is a matter of acute concern to the many villages in my constituency that are located along the roads on which, inevitably, the minestone would have to be carried from the Betteshanger, Snowdown and Tilmanstone collieries to Cheriton or perhaps to some other point of the workings, that such minestone should be taken by rail, and not by road.

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I do not wish to pre-empt anything that his hon. Friend the Minister will say, but I do not know whether he was present when I moved the somewhat imprecise clause to which he referred. However, I said that the Select Committee of which I was a member accepted Eurotunnel's assurances on the last day of our sitting, that, although the construction of a terminal alongside the M20, might mean that some minestone would be carried by road along the M20, it would, we thought, be environmentally better for the people whom the right hon. and learned Gentleman represents, and for the people of Kent in general.

We are all focusing on the same point. I hope that I speak for the entire House in saying that we should be grateful for the Minister's opinion about that situation. Should there be any doubt about that point, I must put my hon. Friend on notice that the matter will certainly be raised in another place by many of those whom I have the privilege to represent.

New clause 6 stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South. Again, I echo his perceptive and elegant phrases on the important issue of soil disposal because, on present form, the brunt of that operation, if I may so describe it, is likely to be borne in my constituency. As I understand it, leaving aside the million cubic tonnes which will be deposited at Cheriton, the greater part will have to be deposited at the base of Shakespeare cliff. I do not think that I need comment to such an informed audience as the Chamber comprises—I see many hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee and on the Select Committee—the charms of Shakespeare cliff, with all its literary associations. Again, I warm with admiration to the quotations from "King Lear" and other sources with which my hon. Friend the Minister regaled the Standing Committee. The cliff is a feature of considerable importance to those in my constituency, and, I am sure, to other people living in east Kent and elsewhere.

Although one may have to accept reluctantly that Shakespeare cliff is the best site, by comparison with any other offered, none the less I should feel happier if the matter were considered carefully by the Select Committee in another place. Indeed, having glanced at the report of the Standing Committee, I note that my hon. Friend the Minister said that his Department would make available all the necessary evidence for a further thorough review of this sensitive issue by that Select Committee.

I diffidently suggest that there are two points. First, where can the spoil be placed satisfactorily? My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) may have views about that. Secondly, if that spoil is not to be placed in an area close to the workings, how is it to be carted away? That question may generate the same concern as the movement of minestone.

10.30 pm

I now want to consider new clause 7. I was alarmed by the construction placed on the Bill by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South. The principle that Eurotunnel can derive additional revenue by placing advertising hoardings in and around Shakespeare cliff and other sensitive spots underlies the new clause. I must stress that no one has devoted as much thought to these matters than my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South, but, although I do not want to deny Eurotunnel any reasonable sources of revenue, I would regard the placing of hoardings in those areas as an unreasonable source of revenue.

Until I had heard the interesting comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South, on a perhaps inexpert reading of the Bill I had assumed that the planning permisson granted by clause 9 was limited specifically to the works of construction. I do not regard advertising hoardings, restaurants, kiosks or fun fairs sited at the base of Shakespeare cliff on the pan or apron that is to be constructed there, as within the scope of clause 9. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will be able to reassure us about that. I am not claiming that this has not been an extremely useful debate, but if the Minister replies to that point, at least we would have it on record that that is the way in which the Government consider that the Bill should be construed.

If there is any doubt about the point, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister would want to meet the legitimate anxieties of my constituents and perhaps the constituents of other hon. Members representing east Kent constituencies. That would ensure that the planning consent afforded by the Bill is of a limited and specific character and that any operations outside the scope of the excavation of the tunnel are matters for special and separate planning applications. Although my hon. Friend the Minister might not want to go quite as far as that, I hope that if there were matters of acute sensitivity—if, for example, the scale was considerable—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment would consider it appropriate to call in such applications in view of the implications in a very sensitive part of the world.

These are three extremely important and useful clauses. Depending upon the reply that the Minister gives, I hope that we will elicit something that will be read and scrutinised with extreme care and which will have a considerable bearing on the way in which the Bill proceeds in this House and in another place.

My hon. Friend the Minister of State will appreciate that the proposal before us has achieved unanimity among Kent Members which has been lacking so far in the previus proceedings on the Bill. I hope that he will understand the significance of that, as it shows that this is a worthy proposal. I hope that he will respond, if he cannot accept the precise wording in the clause, in a way that shows that he supports the principle. I hope that a proposal and protection of this kind will be incorporated in the legislation in one form or another.

It has been suggested that the proposition lacks teeth. It is certainly an expression of good intention. If it were only that, we would welcome it as a benign, albeit toothless, smile. That would be better than nothing. However, I imagine that many lawyers will be able to translate these good intentions in the courts into rather more meaningful protections.

These protections must be of value to all of us. It would be of special comfort to the people of Kent and elsewhere if such a clause could be incorporated. Without having carried out major research into the matter, I believe that there are many precedents in other Bills, expressed in general terms, for the protection of flora and fauna and the the environment generally. I can certainly recall private Bills, not hybrid Bills with which I have been concerned, where the Committee has inserted clauses such as this. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will take heed of that, look at the precedents, if they need to—perhaps they have already decided to accept the clause—and go ahead with it at least in principle.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Rees) was competing with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) as to who was going to suffer the most. Undoubtedly those Kent constituencies are in the front line. My point is that the damage to the environment potentially spreads throughout the county and beyond. It fans out in a much broader way and the new clause is sufficiently wide to offer some comfort and protection to those areas far beyond the front-line constituencies. That is why I welcome the way in which it is expressed. It does not lay a duty just upon Eurotunnel, it lays a duty upon the

"Railway Board, Kent County Council, the Planning Authorities and the appropriate Minister or Ministers."

I believe that to be of fundamental importance, because much of the environmental impact will be felt in constituencies such as mine.

I should like to take the time of the House to express my fundamental objection to the tunnel. I have been a Member of the House for 17 years and throughout those years one of my principle concerns has been about the damage caused by heavy lorries to the roads and ancient buildings of Kent. I have been concerned with the damage to our villages and towns caused by impact, vibration or sheer volume.

Most of us—it is certainly not confined to Kent constituencies—have fought long and hard for bypasses for our villages. Many of us have fought hard against increasingly heavy lorries using unsuitable rural roads. We have seen cold stores designed for agricultural use become used for increasingly industrial purposes. We have seen international lorries using depots designed for the horse and cart age.

My concern is what the tunnel will do by the generation of more traffic through the unsuitable roads of Kent. We will be told that it will all go on the M2 and M20, but those roads are virtually up to capacity already. The inevitable result is that we will see more traffic filtering through every highway and byway and every rural lane, using every rat run available throughout the county.

I should like the Minister to address that point. I should like him to say that, by accepting a clause of this kind, he accepts that Ministers, the county council and the planning authorities would have a duty to respond to that threat. They could respond in a number of ways. They could respond by assuring us that they will not increase the lorry weight from 38 tonnes to 40 tonnes. the pressure for that change will be great once we have easier traffic flows through to the continent. They could give us an assurance that they will welcome weight and width restrictions throughout the county. That is hard to achieve at present.

Is my hon. Friend saying that he favours more smaller lorries rather than fewer larger lorries? I want to understand his argument.

My hon. Friend will not tempt me into a debate about lorry weights. All the evidence so far is that the heavier the lorry—the more economical the use of lorry transport—the more lorries we get. We do not get fewer. Time will tell who is right on that debate. So far most of the forecasts we made when lorry weights were increased have been proved correct. However, I shall not be drawn into that discussion.

It is within the power of Government, and it would be underlined by this new clause, to ensure that we limit the damage done by cars and heavy lorries on roads through many of the most beautiful villages in our area. Fundamental to this point is whether the tunnel will generate more rail or road traffic. The railway lobby sees the tunnel as a great boon to the railway industry. I see it as a bonanza for lorries. All we are doing is creating a new underground ferry designed to serve the best interests of the car and lorry traffic of this modern age. The interests and profits of Eurotunnel will be best served and secured, not by long-distance freight or by passengers on trains, but by encouraging and maximising the traffic of cars and heavy lorries through our county.

This is my worry. I want my right hon. Friend to deal with and prevent the impact and vibration problems caused by heavy lorries and cars using roads which were never designed for that purpose, and to consider compensation for householders who suffer in that way. A clause of this kind has to be welcomed. It offers protection in specific areas, especially to those affected by the immediate developments, but it offers a broad statement of intent and powers with regard to counties and places far beyond the immediate area of impact.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover mentioned the constituency of Faversham in the context of the disposal of spoil. Without going into detail, I was disappointed that the concept of depositing much of this spoil on the Lappel bank in my constituency seems to have been abandoned.

At the Lappel bank in the Medway there is land that requires reclamation. We have the opportunity to move this spoil around by sea without causing any traffic problems at all on the roads. There is a strong economic and environmental argument for that and I thoroughly endorse my right hon. and learned Friend's hope that a Select Committee in another place will examine this question thoroughly again to ensure that we make no mistakes in that respect.

I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) and I are in agreement on this issue. I fear that his romantic attachment to the Channel tunnel is totally at variance with his belief that we can in some way secure environmental protection, but I respect his sincerity. I think that there will be environmental damage, but I hope that the House will not lose this opportunity of including in the Bill a general statement of intention and hopefully of giving some powers and duties to the Government to take whatever steps are necessary to protect our environment from the worst effects of this development.

I have kept silent during the discussion on this Bill, perhaps because I believe that the Channel tunnel is in the national interest and because it is best to leave the debate on it to Members representing the locality. But on this point I have to make a comment and a plea to the Government. I speak as vice-president of the London Wildlife Trust, a group which has had environmental victories of late, but the most important reason why I speak is that I was a resident for more than 13 years just two miles from Sellindge and seven miles from Folkestone. That area was the site of my formative years. My grandparents lived for 20 years in Hythe. I always regarded that area as home.

My first political experience was gained from joining the Young Conservatives in the constituency of Folkestone and Hythe, although I must admit that my purpose was not political but rather to be an inch closer to the daughter of the then Member for Folkestone and Hythe—and delightful she was.

My sisters were all educated in the area. Regrettably, because of my close interest in the flora and fauna of that area I was sent further away, but I spent many a happy year on the beaches there and indeed explored Shakespeare cliff and stood on the old disused Shakespeare Halt, although in later years I spent a lot of my time on the leas in Folkestone well after the time of day when one could see the local sights.

In spite of the arguments of the Opposition, the Government have an enviable record in this Parliament on the environment. In many areas they have brought a greening to the House. In practical terms they have a better record on the environment than any Government. Therefore, it would be a grave disappointment if they did not express a commitment to this most beautiful area in the south-east of England.

The hon. Gentleman makes a claim about the Government's environmental record. Has he read the reports of the debates in the Standing Committee and has he any comments to make on the repeated refusal of the Government to accept even the most modest, minor amendment designed to protect the environment from the worst ravages of this scheme?

Not only have I read the reports of the Committee but I share an office with an hon. Member who was on that Committee and I have discussed these matters at length with him. If the hon. Gentleman had been listening to my speech instead of trying to rise on environmental issues like a trout to the fly he would have heard me say that this construction is in the national interest. However, I draw a line on the point of the environment. There must necessarily be some damage to the environment with a construction of this size. I ask the Government to renew and improve their commitment to the environment in the way that they have done so many times in this Parliament.

I do not support new clause 4. It is full of precatory words, wishes and hopes. It reminds me of the person who put in his will the clause, "And to my Uncle Harry who wanted to be remembered in my will, hello Harry." The clause does not mean anything—it is just wishes. This area of Kent is one of the most beautiful parts of Britain. I am sure that the Government would not embark on a scheme of this size without a commitment to the environment.

I should like to pay tribute to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). We have talked a great deal about the beauty of his constituency. When one has a majority the size of mine, it is no doubt believed that my jealousy for his constituency and the position he holds arises purely because of the majority that he enjoyed in the last election. He knows, because of his love of his constituency, that my jealousy is based not only on a beautiful area but on people I remember well, many of whom he knows. My hon. and learned Friend is full of frustration about these discussions. If the Government were to give a commitment to make sure that this development is as sensitive as possible to the environment, and if they can give a commitment to the landscaping and to the lessening of destruction that must occur because of building in some areas, I know that my hon. and learned Friend will be happy. So will I and the millions of people who know this area of Britain.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) will forgive me if I do not follow him down the byways of his youth. I should like to refer to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) and remind him that Britain is a trading nation and, if it is to survive, must continue to trade with our nearest partners on the continent.

It is reasonable to assume that by constructing a rail tunnel rather than having a road tunnel or continuing with ferries as the main way of reaching the continent, we increase the chances of getting some of the heavy lorries off the roads of Kent and the roads in the rest of Britain. That must be our objective, and we say to British Rail that it should take up the challenge and try to meet it.

There are those in the House who believe that the Channel tunnel must not be allowed to spoil the environment. Equally, there are those who believe that environmental considerations must not be allowed to spoil the Channel tunnel project. It is my contention that it is possible to bridge the gap between the two and that they are not mutually exclusive.

As a member of the Standing Committee I came into the discussions rather later than some hon. Members, but I quickly came into the arguments about Shakespeare cliff, and it is to that site that I want to direct my remarks.

Members who have not been to the Shakespeare cliff site may find it helpful if I remind them of the fact that it is also known as the Old Colliery site. Coal has been mined in that area since 1890. The original cliff is not that which nature provided but that which was created by the blasting for the railway in the 1840s. A visit to the site will convince most Members that the claims made by some opponents of the scheme that this is one of the more beautiful parts of the United Kingdom can be put to one side.

The platform that was created by the explosions of 1840 created an area stretching out to sea of some 150 m. The proposal to dump spoil on the site will enlarge that some 300 m out to sea. The view from the sea will not be affected, but the opportunity to create an area in that part of Kent for leisure activities should not be set aside lightly. The opposition to the project suggests that all spoil is bad wherever one puts it. The idea that it can be used to create a larger area where leisure pursuits can be followed is a point worth making in this debate, In Committee I suggested that the spoil might be moved to gravel pits around the south of England. At the time that seemed to be a good idea because of the business that it would bring to British Rail. It also seemed to be a good idea to fill in those concavities which litter the south of England.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, despite his interpretation of the impact of the working platform and the proposed dump at Shakespeare cliff, the Government's own consultants, appointed to make an environmental appraisal of the submission by the various companies tendering for the Channel tunnel fixed link in relation to the issue of the Eurotunnel proposal to dump spoil at the base of Shakespeare cliff, said:

"The further use of the lower Shakespeare Cliff site beyond that absolutely necessary for construction would give rise to major concern in terms of it effects upon both landscape and ecology."

I entirely accept that that was the opinion of the consultants at that stage. It is reasonable to say that one can take an alternative view of the matter. I do not regard the ecology of the area as being threatened by an enlargement of the platform. It has been there for 140 years, 150 m out to sea. I do not believe that enlarging the platform at this stage will ruin the ecology of the area, and it is reasonable to take the alternative point of view put forward by consultants who asked whether it would be necessary to move the spoil out of the area at all, and whether it would damage the environment of Kent or a larger part of the south of England by moving that large quantity of spoil around that area.

In the interests of brevity, I will merely make the observation that a look at the other site which is of serious consequence—Cheriton—would also show that it is not so likely to be devastated by the proposals of the scheme as many hon. Members have suggested. I will leave my remarks at that.

I turn to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch). Eurotunnel obviously failed to provide him with the necessary information, because I have a brief on environmental considerations dated 15 December which runs to four pages. It says:

"In the detailed construction memorandum…referred to in paragraph 128 of the Special Report of the Select Committee, Eurotunnel has stated that in recognition of the environmental qualities of this area of Kent, it will adopt measures from the outset to mitigate any adverse environmental impact that the construction operations will cause, and will further nature conservation interests, consistent with the need to maintain the construction programme and project viability."

That is a clear undertaking which we have every reason to think will be maintained.

Environmental protection is a matter for a practical process of discussion and negotiation. I do not believe that it has a place in the Bill regulating the project, and on that ground I regard the clause as unnecessary.

I rise to express my shared concern with my hon. Friends from north-east Kent constituencies about the impact of the Channel tunnel on our area. My hon. Friend the Minister knows that I am particularly grateful to him not only for the courtesy and understanding that he has shown in frequently visiting north-east Kent but for the attention that he has paid to the infrastructure and to the concessions and help that he has managed to offer to date. I should like to think that when the final report of the impact study is available to us further measures will be taken to enable us to compete if we have to, as we would like to, with the Nord Pas de Calais region of France.

My thanks and my praise for the Minister's attitude do not extend to the attitude taken by Trans-Manche and Eurotunnel—[Interruption.] Despite the comments of Labour Members, I have a fairly great constituency interest in this; rather greater than some Labour Members. Opposition Members are well aware that hon. Members have a variety of duties.

Trans-Manche and Eurotunnel gave two undertakings early on that seem to be in any danger of being no longer honoured. The first relates to local employment. I use this simply as an example because it does not relate directly to the clause. It was an affront to the people of north-east Kent that Trans-Manche, when placing its advertisements for the first labour opportunities in the area, did not see fit to place those first in the local press. That created some scepticism and cynicism among those of our constituents who had hoped to be employed on the project.

There was not only a suggested undertaking, but what was tantamount to an undertaking in the early stages of the project that the construction accommodation would utilise the under-utilised hotel and guesthouse accommodation in the Isle of Thanet, Dover and Folkestone. I was concerned, as I know my hon. Friends were, to read the most recent report available of the consultative committee dated 17 December and to learn that the plans for a construction camp were going ahead, that any foreseeable future use for that camp as a modern hotel was apparently fading into the distance and that we were likely to be confronted with

"a series of two-storey blocks of temporary buildings divided into small rooms, with separate shower/toilet blocks. Such buildings have an estimated life of about 10–15 years."

Speaking now totally on behalf of my own constituents, I say that it is a grave disappointment that the plans for the utilisation of accommodation—the 1,000 bed-nights a week that we in Thanet can offer—are not being developed and that further acres of Kent land are likely to be used to build a temporary construction camp when we already have the accommodation available.

I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to use whatever influence he may be able to exert to ask the promoters to look yet again at these proposals to ensure that our accommodation is used and that not yet more land is wasted.

I shall not detain the House for long, but I wish to make two points on this new clause. This gives me the opportunity to air once again the fact that the majority of my constituents are concerned about the pressures on the environment that they fear the Channel tunnel would bring. We are in a position to do something to limit those fears if the Government will make it clear that they are firmly behind—so far the indications have been that they are—the maintenance of the green belt and the structure plan and that, in addition, they will encourage Kent county council to make much more use of the opportunity that it has to restrict heavy traffic to larger roads.

It is interesting—because the Channel tunnel will bring us closer contacts with France—for those who have motored in France recently to see how many areas there are which carry general restrictions on heavy traffic, for instance during the night. Yet I find over and over again that there is great reluctance in our county, on the part of the county council and the police, to put restrictions on heavy traffic. That must be done for two reasons. The first reason is to make proper use of the developed road network that will exist by the time the Channel tunnel is completed. Here I also make a plea for confirmation from the Minister that the money to be made available for completion of the improved road network in Kent will be in place before the tunnel opens, rather than catching up afterwards, to limit the bad effects on the environment that increased traffic from the Channel tunnel would bring.

I also support the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) in terms of weight restrictions on heavy lorries. I do not fall into the trap that the Minister fell into in arguing that heavier lorries mean fewer lorries. Experience has not shown that to be the case.

Finally, I hope too, that efforts will continue to encourage traffic to utilise the railways and that every opportunity will be given to British Rail management, in whose court the responsibility is, for developing a positive approach to the opportunities that exist now for it to make full use of the Channel tunnel.

I readily acknowledge the environmental sensitivities of this major project and thus appreciate the motivation behind these new clauses. I must say, however, that they are all, in my view, misguided.

To take new clause 4 first, it is of course important that the works should be carried out with due regard to wildlife, countryside and heritage matters. But the right approach is not a general duty but a specific provision.

To this end, we are providing in schedule 3 to the Bill for the Government's statutory advisers on environmental matters—the Countryside Commission, the Nature Conservancy Council and the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission For England, or English Heritage—to be consulted by local planning authorities. Eurotunnel has also concluded a memorandum of agreement with the statutory environmental agencies and the Southern water authority on environmental matters.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Rees) and the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) drew particular attention Lo the movement of minestone.

I readily accept that that is an important issue. However, it is covered by the planning provisions in schedule 3 to the Bill, under which planning authority approval is required of

"the means and routes by which any minerals, aggregates, bulk materials other than minerals or aggregates and tunnel lining segment…are to be transported to construction and storage sites."

The Select Committee rightly urged that Kent county council should exercise its powers to ensure that as few lorries as possible carry bulk materials by any road other than the M20 to the working sites. I think that it would be inappropriate to go beyond that.

We have always recognised the importance of the issue of spoil. New clause 6 requires an independent study to be carried out to determine the best means of disposing of surplus spoil. I note that the definition of "surplus" is widely drawn; it does not even accept the need for the expanded working platform at Shakespeare cliff. I have to say quite firmly that I believe that the Government have already in practice met the commitment that the clause seeks to impose.

Hon. Members will not be surprised when I say that all the leading alternative sites had technical difficulties, environmental drawbacks or both, and would have given rise to strong objections. What concerned the Government when they considered the practicability of moving the spoil to a site away from the foot of Shakespeare cliff were two major risk factors, which could have had an unquantifiable and unacceptable delaying effect on the construction of the tunnel. First, the essential continuous flow of spoil could be halted by technical problems or adverse weather conditions that interrupted the transportation operation. Secondly, under certain conditions the spoil could become virtually impossible to handle and thus very difficult to move.

I believe, therefore, that the decision is the right one. It is solidly based on substantial evidence from a variety of sources. I accept that the Select Committee had insufficient time to consider the volume of evidence. We shall ensure that that is rectified when the Bill comes before the Select Committee in another place. I do not accept that a further study is necessary or helpful.

My hon. Friends the Members for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch), for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) and for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), who spoke of his early days in the area—all expressed concern about the beauty of the environment of Kent being spoilt. I know that throughout the debate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) has, because of convention, sat silent. However, he has assiduously followed what has been happening and has, from time to time, had considerable impact behind the scenes in ensuring that the points that concerned his constituents were thoroughly examined by the Government and others with responsibility.

The concern for the hop gardens of Kent and the scenic beauty that will meet new arrivals was echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury in his fear that industrial and housing development would destroy the essential beauty of Kent, the flora and the fauna. He was worried that places such as the spot where Caesar Augustus stood near Canterbury and looked at the view would be destroyed for all time.

I understand my hon. Friend's worry, which is perfectly natural. However, he has overlooked the fact that, for the areas that are outwith the Bill, the local authorities will retain their planning powers. I am sure that neither Kent county council nor my hon. Friend's local council would give planning consent to something that would destroy the areas of particular beauty to which he has drawn attention.

On the environmental points that are within the Bill's compass, I draw my hon. Friend's attention to schedule 3, under which consultation must take place with the Nature Conservancy Council, the Countryside Commission and the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission. Schedule 3(16) will, I think, give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks.

The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Raynsford) deplored the idea of the Government going along with Shakespeare cliff as a site for depositing spoil. He described this as a surrender of national interests to the interests of Eurotunnel and worked himself up into a generous lather over it.

If one has a scruffy, abandoned colliery site at the foot of a cliff where hardly anybody can see it and one needs to enlarge that area substantially as the working platform for building the tunnel, there is common sense in extending that and in putting the rest of the spoil there, rather than spoiling other sites as well, since none of the sites is without some practical disadvantages.

I urge the Minister seriously to consider whether his hon. Friends representing constituencies neighbouring Shakespeare cliff would agree with his description of this historic part of our coastline as a scruffy colliery site. Does he agree that his independent consultants advised against further dumping on this site and that only Eurotunnel's consultants, who have a financial interest, recommended it?

The hon. Gentleman made all those points earlier and is now being tediously repetitive. Anybody who doubts that the existing site is exceedingly scruffy should go and look at it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) said that the Government had commissioned consultants who had come forward with options. In fact, they came forward with a short initial study which had not gone in depth into all the points. Only later did some of the more detailed points come out. It must be remembered that the daily rate is about 14,000 tonnes. When one thinks of moving that lot by train to Lappel bank in my hon. Friend's constituency, one can imagine complaints being made about such work going on 24 hours round the clock and about the noise and vibration and so on.

rose—

If my hon. Friend wants to welcome such noise and vibration, I will give way to him.

My hon. Friend has been, unusually, guilty of a serious error. I specifically made the point that the advantage of using the Lappel bank, which is in need of reclamation, is that it could all be seaborne; it could be taken by barge from the works right round into the Medway estuary.

I apologise if I misunderstood my hon. Friend. But if he examines the weather conditions off Shakespeare cliff, he will find that for a substantial part of the year it would not be possible to barge off, and drilling under the sea cannot be stopped simply because there happens to be a storm on the sea. The option of which my hon. Friend speaks was examined and was found not to be practical. Moreover, when the spoil got to the Lappel bank site it would, in wet conditions, turn into sludge, and the normal process of extending the track on the to existing stuff that had been dumped could not proceed because it would be soft and the equipment would sink into the ground.

My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South raised questions about Dover council and somewhat changed his ground, from what he said in Committee upstairs about the revolt and non co-operation of village Hampdens, and I was glad tonight to hear him refer to that issue in more reasonable terms.

The Government introduced amendments to the planning clause of the Bill to give local planning authorities a considerable say in decisions affecting the tunnel works. We did so on the clear understanding that the local planning authorities would use their powers before and after Royal Assent in a responsible manner. We were reassured when the planning authorities concerned, including Dover district council, signed a memorandum of understanding with Eurotunnel promising a constructive approach during the design work on the scheme. That memorandum was presented to the Select Committee, together with the new planning clauses, as a package. I therefore regard the memorandum as a series of assurances to Eurotunnel, to the other planning authorities, to the Government and to the Select Committee.

Dover district council would be well within its rights if it rejected the Eurotunnel planning application for genuine planning reasons. However, as I said during the Committee, if it rejected the planning application simply because it opposed the project, that would be a breach of faith.

How does my hon. Friend know on what basis the council rejected the plan?

I do not know on what basis the council rejected it, but I recall what my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South said in Committee when he praised the village Hampdens who had raised revolt because they were not prepared to co-operate with the Government or with Eurotunnel on the scheme.

My hon. Friend did modify his language earlier in the evening and I welcomed that moderation. I hope that his intervention now will display that moderation and cooperation.

No—on the contrary, I am just about to revert to the inflammatory language. I regard the members of Dover district council as heroes because they stood up for a principle that is absolutely right. It had nothing to do with the ratting insinuations that my hon. Friend has misguidedly made. A few courageous people, not party to any agreement, said that putting an office complex and advertising hoardings on the top of one of the most beautiful landscape sites in England would be environmentally wrong. The council was right.

If there are genuine planning grounds for objecting to the scheme, Dover council is entirely within its rights. But if, as alleged by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South in Committee, the council was indulging in a revolt and a non-co-operation exercise against the whole project, it was breaching an agreement that was given by the council to the Select Committee.

I would be extremely reluctant to ask the House to undo the planning arrangements in the Bill. They give the local planning authorities considerable powers to protect local residents and to influence the final design of the project works. The new planning clause also meets the concerns raised by a number of other petitioners. The planning arrangements are built on mutual trust and if that trust is misplaced the whole edifice will inevitably fall.

I understand that there are strong feelings about the project in Dover but I am confident that the council will find, as the other authorities have done, that it is in the council's best interests and that of its ratepayers to work within the spirit of the memorandum of agreement.

My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham expressed concern about the tunnel generating more traffic on unsuitable roads. Tunnel or no tunnel, the amount of traffic on the roads will double by the end of the century. We are providing a three-lane motorway from the M25 right to the mouth of the tunnel. It would be extraordinary if a lorry driver sought to drive along the unsuitable byroads and lanes of Kent when he had the opportunity to use a three-lane motorway.

Like other hon. Members, I have lived and worked in Kent. I have toured all the parts that will be affected. The Government recognise the beauty of Kent and are committed to leaving existing safeguards intact. The areas that it is absolutely necessary to damage are defined in the Bill, and the Government have consulted their statutory advisers. On that basis, I believe that the House would be right to reject the amendment.

I think that the House will be disappointed with the tenor of the Minister's remarks.

Some Conservative Members who represent Kent have spoken at length, some passionately, and some both, about the desirability of preserving the flora and fauna of Kent and they gave their support to this amendment. I do not think it is fair of the Minister to attack my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Raynsford) for correctly pointing out that the land use consultants who recommended the use of the Shakespeare site were those appointed and paid for by the concessionaires. The Minister should abandon the rather scruffy brief with which he has detained the House for 15 minutes and answer some of the questions raised by hon. Members.

He has.

Well he did not answer them satisfactorily. New clause 4, which the Minister described as "misguided", was described by the right hon. and learned Member for Dover (Mr. Rees) as imprecise. It is hardly the most violent new clause ever tabled in this or other debates. It states:

"the appropriate Minister or Ministers shall have regard to the desirability of preserving natural beauty"—

not their natural beauty but the natural beauty of the county of Kent. It states that they

"shall take into account any effect which the proposals would have"

and that

"the desirability of securing…the movement of minestone from sources in Kent shall, to the greatest extent practicable, be carried out by rail."

That is scarcely the most aggressive new clause to be tabled. It was carefully worded in my customary non-controversial way, the better, I should have thought, to appeal to the Minister.

My hon. Friends will be relieved to hear that I do not intend to refer to hon. Members' contributions. I issue a word of caution to the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), after listening to the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) talk about the hon. and learned Member's constituency. I warn the hon. and learned Member to remember the gloomy aftermath of the hon. Gentleman's defeat at the next general election, that tonight we have heard the bid by the defeated ex-Conservative Member for Richmond and Barnes to take over those pastures in Kent where the hon. Gentleman was once photographed wearing only a vest. The photograph appeared in a colour magazine. He was not very old at the time—in fact, it was a baby contest.

The hon. Gentleman should get his facts right. I won the beautiful baby contest, aged one, in Beaconsfield, and that is another seat that I desire.

If the hon. Gentleman desires Beaconsfield, he should use the photograph to which he has referred rather than the present-day one.

It was somewhat churlish, to say the least, of the Minister of State to reply as he did. I hope that those Conservative Members from Kent who spoke so passionately in favour of this fairly innocuous new clause will seize the opportunity to put their votes where their passion was a few minutes ago and will support the clause in the Division Lobby.

I beg to move, That the clause be now read a Second time.

The new clause seeks to safeguard the public interest against unwelcome and hostile changes to the financial and managerial control of the Channel tunnel. This is an important issue, which evidently worries the present so-called management of Eurotunnel because it suggests on page 9 of its prospectus the introduction of legislative changes that are similar to those proposed in the new clause. Unfortunately, however, the British Government, probably because of their ambivalent and doubtful ideology about the free-market purity of the Channel tunnel, have so far declined to tackle this issue. However, that must be tackled soon, because it is now public knowledge that Eurotunnel is already embroiled in what I suspect will be the first of several power struggles for the control of its management.

I shall refer in a moment to the devastating series of newspaper articles with headlines such as "Chunnel group in crisis", which was on the front page of today's Daily Telegraph, "Chunnel's new blow" on the front page of the business news section of The Sunday Times last week, and "Future of Channel Tunnel chief in doubt" from yesterday's Financial Times. The gist of those articles is that the chairman of Eurotunnel, Lord Pennock, apparently wants to go, his self-designated successor, Sir Nigel Broackes, is allegedly disenchanted and would like to resign from the board, and there is general turmoil, chaos and a crisis of leadership within the company. That is hardly the sort of boardroom harmony that one expects from a group which is passing the hat round to raise a mere £750 million from the market in a few months.

However, after all those surprises and even a number of threats, the two full pages of Eurotunnel advertisements that were scattered like expensive confetti through every national newspaper in the country, could not prevent the embarrassing revelations from appearing in print.

Whatever the boardroom row really means—I shall suggest later that it is immensely significant—one thing is crystal clear: far from being the solid, reliable blue-chip institution which it likes to portray itself as in its £10 million advertising campaign, in reality, Eurotunnel is a deeply divided organisation that is plagued by internal dissension, defections and public doubts. Those doubts centre on Eurotunnel's ability to manage the Channel tunnel and to ensure its future financial viability.

There are also grave doubts about the sources of finance for this gargantuan project. If those sources exist at all beyond the rather sorry-looking group of construction companies and other punters who, after a long struggle and severe flagellation from the Governor of the Bank of England, have literally scratched together the initial £206 million of equity for this £5 billion project, according to Eurotunnel's own prospectus most of the rest of the money will come from Japanese, far eastern, middle eastern, African and other Francophone sources.

Is my hon. Friend suggesting that the Governor of the Bank of England who, of course, has enormous influence and pressure in financial markets, was actually putting pressure on, or twisting the arms of, organisations to get them to find money for the project against their commercial judgment? Surely my hon. Friend is not suggesting such a scandalous activity on the part of the Governor of the Bank of England?

The Governor of the Bank of England is a very fine lord lieutenant of Kent, but I must say that his activities in regard to the funding of Eurotunnel are those of a hyperactive gentleman. Frankly, I have been amazed by his role so far. One of the purposes of my speech will be to suggest that no such role should be played by any official in high places, or by the Governor of the Bank of England in future.

Anyway, with the help of the Governor of the Bank of England, Eurotunnel scratched together the first £206 million, which leaves a mere 96 per cent. of the necessary funds still to be raised.

I shall turn later to the sources of funding for Eurotunnel, because at this stage I should like to make only one preliminary point. It is absolutely vital for the House to understand the importance of the little-noticed clause 32 of the concessional agreement which the Government signed with Eurotunnel on 1 March 1986—incidentally, without any debate in this House. Under that agreement, the Franco-Arabian-African multinational banks, who are putting up at least £4 billion of the money, are given the automatic right to take over the management of the Channel tunnel in what I regard as the highly predictable event of the much smaller sums of equity investment proving inadequate.

Against that background it is not necessary to be labelled a little Englander to have some doubts about whether it is wise to allow a strategic artery of our national communications with Europe—that is how the optimists see it—to be financed in the way that I have described without any safeguards by the potential owners' consortium of 40 multinational banks and investment houses, only two of which are British.

If, instead of the Anglo-French Channel tunnel that we were promised, we end up with what I think will he a Franco-Arabian-African-Japanese tunnel, with, for all we know, the future financial equivalents of Ivan Boesky or Adnan Khashoggi in control of it, let us write into the Bill safeguards that will protect the management and the corporate structure of the company for the benefit of the public interest.

The Channel tunnel has so far proved to be an unloved project, both politically and financially. Politically, even the most ardent tunneller would have to admit that the public reaction to the Chunnel has been at best lukewarm and at worst downright hostile. Yet despite this widespread public and political scepticism, a French President and a British Prime Minister who are sadly infected with the statesman's disease of monumentitis, and a Government majority of 140 in the House, mean that the reality is that the Bill will receive its Third Reading tonight. But it will not be all over bar the shouting. Leaving aside the near certainty of a sticky passage in another place, the real battlefield on which the future of the Channel tunnel will be decided will be in the financial arena and not at Westminster.

In financial terms, Eurotunnel is entering a different and much more desperate ball game. Everyone knows that the Chunnel's fate will be decided by international financiers and not by domestic politicians. Before we consider what safeguards should be written into the Bill it is important to glance at the history and the prospects of the money and management of the Channel tunnel.

The founding shareholders of Eurotunnel, who put up about £43 million, were a group of Anglo-French joint venturers, or joint adventurers, the founders being dominated by construction companies, especially French companies. It is unusual for construction companies to be the founding and dominant shareholders in a project in which they hope to obtain large contracts to be paid for by other shareholders.

The flavour of the construction companies' intentions were rather well summarised by Mr. Francis Bouyges of the Bouyges Construction Company. Mr. James Sherwood, who was then in dialogue with Mr. Bouyges about a rival consortium, wrote a letter on 2 June 1986 which read:

"Shortly before the concession was granted, Mr. Francis Bouyges, the spokesman for the French contractors, said to me 'Mr. Sherwood, you have no idea what enormous profits exist in this project for the construction companies'."

The ambiguous and somewhat avaricious role of the construction companies as founding shareholders was one reason why Eurotunnel found the next and rather small tranche of equity fund-raising so difficult. Equity 1 was the petty cash for the project and equity 2 was the seed money for it. Those efforts have so far raised £206 million of equity, and although that sounds a large sum it is a mere 4 per cent. of the £5,000 billion of equity and loans that the Channel tunnel project needs.

Equity 2 was a public relations disaster for Eurotunnel. The financial press used words such as "fiasco", "desperate scramble", "a rescue from the brink of collapse" and "a shambles" to describe the extraordinary story of missed deadlines, postponements, emergency flights to Paris by bankers and the involvement of Downing street and the Bank of England.

To summarise the position of equity 2, I can do no better than to read from an article about which my hon. Friend the Minister of State is sensitive. In fact, it is rather favourable to the Channel tunnel. I refer to the article which appeared in the remarkably well informed Contract Journal on 20 November 1986 under the headline "Treading water in the City". The relevant extract reads as follows:

"When the curtain sticks and the leading actor forgets his lines at the dress rehearsal, it does not necessarily mean that the first night is going to be a disaster. But backers get the jitters and start examining contracts for escape clauses.

Something of the sort has happened to Eurotunnel, whose efforts to raise £70 million in the City last month very nearly ended in embarrassing failure.

Raising £70 million in the UK towards the £206 million second tranche resulted in public humiliation for the financial team which apportioned how much cash Eurotunnel should try to raise in the UK and how much in other leading international markets.

On reflection, the United Kingdom application was overoptimistic. For, while France romped home with its £70 million of shares, and Japan and America stumped up, the UK operation was whipped to the finishing post by the Bank of England, reportedly at the behest of Mrs. Thatcher, who cracked the whip in the City for the last £10 million."

I realise that I know a great deal less about the Arab financial world than my hon. Friend, but does it not strike him as ironic that he should quote the private notes of an American president of the company that runs a large slice of what he would undoubtedly describe as a national asset in order to rubbish a scheme that is at present trying to raise money on the international markets?

I do not know what my hon. Friend is talking about. I cannot quite follow his point. I was making my own speech and quoting from the Contract Journal, which is actually a quite well-known public magazine.

Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to explain. My hon. Friend earlier quoted from what must have been the notes belonging to Mr. James Sherwood, an American citizen running a British ferry company, which is surely a national asset.

My hon. Friend seems a little sensitive about this. Mr. Bouyges and Mr. Sherwood are well-known public figures who were at one stage nearly partners together. Correspondence was exchanged between them. Mr. Sherwood wrote a letter which has been circulating around dozens of people and that is the letter from which I have quoted. I do not regard that letter as private notes, as it has been in circulation for some time.

Whatever went on between the various tycoons, the House should focus on the really bizarre nature of this fund raising in the United Kingdom for equity 2. After all—

Would my hon. Friend remind the House that the baronet, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) writes for the very journal to which my hon. Friend has referred? Is it true that my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton wrote the article from which my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) has quoted? Or did Dr. Johannes Witteveen write the article?

I hesitate to invoke the name of the good doctor, who I think is innocent in this matter. The truth is that, apart from having a vast team of research assistants at my disposal, the devastating quotation came from the magazine Contract Journal. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) passed me a copy of that magazine when he was trying to draw my attention to an article on pedal cycles. He was not the author of the article, but he was the source of the copy. He was as innocent as that. He simply passed me the copy of the magazine as he wanted to draw my attention to an article on pedal cycles.

However, I seized on that quotation which summarises the bizarre nature of the fund raising in equity 2. It really does sound very strange. It was the greatest project of all time, according to its backers. Britain was trying to raise a mere £70 million, yet even that limited target could be raised only after whips had been cracked and arms twisted, No. 10 Downing street had been brought into the fray and that great and good man the Governor of the Bank of England had been required to stop regulating the City and chasing the members of Guinness in order to pass around the hat on Eurotunnel's behalf.

Sir Nigel Broackes was the arch-enemy of Eurotunnel in the past, but he was brought on to the board—again, apparently, on the instruction of the Governor of the Bank of England. The only person who was left out of this frantic whip round was the Secretary of State for Transport. I suspect that he and his Ministers of State were omitted so that they could pop up and deny any suggestion that the Department had ever been involved in any of these activities. That is why they come to the Dispatch Box Question Time after Question Time saying that they cannot possibly answer any questions about Eurotunnel because that has nothing to do with them even though it has a lot to do with the Bank of England and everyone else.

At least they did not send in the Special Branch.

They did not send in the Special Branch. We were spared that.

The odd thing is that we have been continually told that the project has nothing to do with the Government. We have been told that it is a free market project which will be decided by market forces and that the Government will stay at arm's length. The reality has been completely different. I believe that the Governor of the Bank of England will have cause to regret his direct involvement when the full facts come out or if the rest of the money is not raised and those who put in the £206 million lose their shirts.

Some of the truth is dribbling out. On 8 December 1986, the back page of the Financial Times carried a well-informed story by Andrew Taylor under the heading:

"Founding shareholders help Eurotunnel to meet funding target."

The article said:

'Eurotunnel did not expect the founding shareholders to participate in the October issue."

In other words, the construction companies were anxious not to have to put their hands into their own pockets. The article revealed:

"the struggle that, the Anglo-French Channel tunnel consortium had in raising £206 million in an international share placing at the end of October is underlined by a full list of subscribers to the issue. It shows that Eurotunnel would have fallen short of its target by at least £12 million if the founding banking and construction shareholders had not decided to increase their stake in the venture. Total purchases either directly or indirectly by the founding shareholders totalled more than £20 million."

As I have said before, that desperate operation reminded me of an old French proverb:

"It is a sad woman who has to buy her own perfume."

It is a sad and sorry company which, having touted itself all over the world to find new shareholders, cannot find them and has to go back to an unwilling group of founding shareholders and persuade them to pony up for the shares that no-one else would buy.

Just so that I understand the position, is my hon. Friend quoting from his speech in Committee? Is he reading Hansard or is he reading a newspaper?

I am reading some of the same quotations, but that was a quotation from theFinancial Times. I am reading it for the benefit of the whole House.

While the traumatic difficulties were going on, the noble Lord Pennock was exuding confidence and optimism about financing the Channel tunnel. There was a quotation from Sir Robin Day's programme "The World at One", when all hon. Members were ticked off by Lord Pennock. He wished that Members of Parliament would stop mucking around with the Bill because he had got banks from all over the world ready to finance the project. That remark was justified. On page 63 of the rivetingly interesting prospectus put out by Eurotunnel, one finds the list of 40 international banks.

My hon. Friend the Minister was working from some other list, because he was able to reveal at an earlier stage in the proceedings that he knew something about a draft list of other bankers, including the European Investment Bank. I am basing my remarks on the printed prospectus which seems the most reliable source of information, since that is what has gone to shareholders. It lists the 40 international banks that have said that they are apparently willing to lend the £4 billion to Eurotunnel. The willingness to lend is subject to a mass of small print conditions that can be extremely easy to wriggle out of. Let us not cavil; the list of potential lenders is there.

The list of lenders is worrying, because the majority of the 40 banks are from outside the EEC. There are 14 Japanese banks that dominate the field, there are several Arab banks and, apparently, even some African banks are willing to support the project. There are plenty of French banks, some of them are even state-owned banks or financial institutions. Those organisations know a good benefit match for the French state when they see one. The British banks are conspicuous by their absence. Of a total of 40 banks, only two are British. Only the National Westminster bank and the Midland bank are brave enough to join in the £4 billion financing project. A tiny slice of the action is going to Britain.

The British institutions, with the direct encouragement and advice of the Governor of the Bank of England, have been told that they should put their money into the equity of the Channel tunnel. That is why a rather artificially high figure of 43 per cent. of British construction companies at this moment own a very small amount of equity. But that situation could not possibly last. Therefore, as many institutions in the City of London were quick to spot, that advice to go into the equity of the Channel tunnel is likely to prove disastrously wrong. As I see it, the equity investors in the Channel tunnel are the equivalent of the first waves of infantrymen at the battle of the Somme. They will be wiped out. The reason they will be wiped out is that not to be wiped out requires, as the red Queen said in Alice in Wonderland, a belief in six impossible things before breakfast.

To give three of the impossible things that one has to believe before breakfast in order to believe that the equity investors will not be wiped out, one has first to believe that this project will be built on time and on budget, which is a triumph of hope over experience for any construction project of such size and scope and underwater difficulty that the world has ever seen.

Secondly, one has to believe that the figures in the Eurotunnel prospectus and its forecasts are going to come true. If I had to pick out just one statistic which makes me certain that the clock has struck 13, it is the figure which says that the Eurotunnel will capture 67 per cent. of the total car traffic market crossing the channel. That figure can only have been plucked out of the air by someone who has no understanding of the psychology of the English motorist—as indeed Eurotunnel shows by its remarkable advertisements placed at such great expense in the national papers. It pictures the Channel in the middle of a hurricane or a force 9 gale, with foaming billows, an albatross diving into the waves, thunder and lightning overhead. The inviting slogan is:

"You will travel better when you are under the weather".

I am sure that is true in January and February, but the bulk, something like 80 per cent., of the cross-Channel holiday motoring market travels in June, July, August and September. The psychology of the British motorist is that he enjoys a touch of the briny and a bit of ozone to cross the Channel, especially if he can do it at a lower price.

That brings me to the third point. Another impossible thing one has to believe is that the Eurotunnel consortium will not be badly hurt by the inevitable price war. As soon as the tunnel opens, it is certain that the ferries, in a desperate effort to fight it off, will dip their prices sharply, which they are able to do, and which Eurotunnel is unable to do because it has to carry the heavy capital cost. In the short to medium term, we will see a price war on the Channel and enormous competition, which will result in the ferries doing quite well.

I am sure, unless I am very wrong, that we will see higher than expected construction costs. The possibility, if not the probability, of the equity investors' funds proving inadequate, I suggest, is very high. What will happen when those equity investors' funds run out? Here we have to turn to clause 32 of the concession agreement, headed "Provisions relating to lenders". It goes on at some length and begins:

"The parties to this agreement agree that the new Concessionaires shall be substituted for the initial Concessionaires in the following circumstances".

These new concessionaires are known as "substituted entities".

The substituted entities are, in a phrase, the lenders. This extraordinary concessional agreement gives virtually an automatic right for the banks to take over and run the whole project as the new management. There are grave dangers in this, because when the consortium just changes its whole nature then comprises not the original equity shareholders but the bankers, only two out of 40 of whom are British, Britain and even the EEC will end up having very small shares in this project, which will lead to managerial changes.

Managerial changes seem to be happening somewhat unwillingly in Eurotunnel at the present time. We have already seen a flood of the sort of "Broackes knifes Pennock" headlines—or is it vice versa—but this is going to be nothing to the shock-horror equivalent of the headline "Boesky and Khashoggi unite to double prices on the Chunnel", which we will see if the substitute entities, who will then be the owners, get together. Although some parts of my speech may seem like scaremongering talk, what I envisage is perfectly possible, given the strange financial structure and the concession agreement.

12 midnight

We have here a swaying house of cards over which Parliament and the Government have abandoned all control. The only people who recognise the real danger are the people in Eurotunnel who, in a whiff of panic, decided that they had better write something into the prospectus to cover them for this kind of eventuality. On page 9 of the prospectus there is a note which says:

"Consideration is being given by the Governments to the introduction of powers which would be in addition to the existing powers under United Kingdom and French Law which could be embodied in a protocol to the treaty and empower the Governments, following ratification, to prevent any person holding the office or exercising the function of chairman, deputy chairman or chief executive who is not a national of a member state of the European Community and to prevent any person from acquiring by transfer or otherwise a beneficial interest of 20 per cent. or more of the voting capital of Eurotunnel."

Eurotunnel thought this thing through. It wants the safeguards. When I raised this matter in Committee the Minister of State at first denied that anyone had ever dreamed of such a scheme. After tremendous correction from the civil servants, he came back and said that they were thinking about it. I am pressing to have these thoughts clarified.

There is a genuine danger that the control of Eurotunnel, both managerial and financial, could shift dramatically away from anything envisaged at present. The Eurotunnel project is of strategic importance to Britain. Certain strategic industries, such as the television industry about which I know something, cannot change managements control or shareholdings without the consent of the governing body—in that case the IBA. In the same way, some safeguards should be written into the Bill to prevent an effective financial or managerial takeover of the Channel tunnel.

Although I do not suppose that Eurotunnel will welcome every word that I have said in moving this new clause, it will see the wording of the clause as the first recorded example of co-operation between the Member for Thanet, South and Eurotunnel. That is because I am trying to write into the Bill exactly what sagacious businessmen who look ahead can see as a danger which needs to be headed off. I hope that the Government will accept the clause now or in the other place, because something like it has to be written into the Bill.

I listened with a great deal of interest and delight to the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), who moved the new clause. I am certain that many of his remarks about greedy, predatory construction companies and the disgraceful way in which private capital behaves will be abstracted, not from Hansard, because that would not be allowed, but elsewhere, and will appear in close terms from the election manifesto that I expect to produce in the near future. I have rarely heard in the House such a damning indictment of the way in which private companies operate, and to have it from the horse's mouth is absolutely delightful.

Much of what the hon. Gentleman said, especially his quotations from various newspapers, reminded me of quotations from the seedy saga of TV-am, of which I think the hon. Gentleman has some experience. We have to take it that he is speaking with some experience and some credibility. I quarrel with him on one point. He quoted Mr. Sherwood in aid. I know that what I am about to say may not be appreciated in all parts of the Committee, but Mr. Sherwood is not to be trusted as far as he can be thrown—which is not very far. He constantly parades himself as a defender of the ferry industry and many people are naive enough to believe him. He has damaged the ferries that he operates and his predatory activities have sacked more seamen than are likely to lose their jobs if and when the Channel tunnel goes ahead. Some care should be exercised about the sources of evidence.

The hon. Member, who moved the new clause, said very little about it. He constantly repeated—I shall not attempt to emulate his stage accent—various people and he constantly referred to African banks. What a terrible thing that African banks may have money which they wish to invest in Britain. He constantly mentioned Mr. Khashoggi and the fellow who has been suspended from the New York stock exchange as being people that we should be aware of. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman let himself down tonight. Although he said that he did not want to be described as a little Englander, the whole of his speech was chauvinistic and disparaging of foreigners in a manner that I regret.

I do not understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying about lenders taking over the tunnel. Once the initial capital is raised the tunnel will be built. The company will not go bankrupt in the process of building the tunnel. It may run into difficulties once it is up and running. If the traffic forecasts are not up scratch it will lose money. Presuming the tunnel is built, if, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, the ferry companies sharply reduce their prices to keep their trade, it is possible that Eurotunnel will go bankrupt. What will then happen if these mysterious and sinister foreign bankers take over? What will they do to affect our strategic link with Europe? Is it as the hon. Gentleman suggests? Will they shut it down? If they take it over they will try to make a success of it. The hon. Gentleman says that they will double the prices. They will not double the prices if, because the company has not previously collected enough revenue it has gone bankrupt. They may—I accept that this is a danger—try to use predatory pricing to drive the ferries out of business.

The logic does not stand up. Eurotunnel will go bankrupt only if the ferries are still thriving. It cannot go bankrupt if the ferries go out of business because it will have a monopoly of the trade. The logic in the hon. Gentleman's scenario does not add up.

The hon. Gentleman suggests that there is the possibility of a price war. We have suggested on many occasions that there ought to be a mechanism to act swiftly to prevent a price war, which would have disastrous effects on the ferries, or indeed on the tunnel if it is built and operating. We should set up an office of Channel fair trading which would be specifically charged with acting speedily and directly on prices and competition. We believe that the existing mechanisms for dealing with unfair competition take too long to deal with the problem. Therefore, there should be one specific body to deal directly with it. That would be a better way to go about it.

On the face of it, new clause 8 has some attractions in that only a national of a member state of the European Community can be chairman of the company. The hon. Gentleman made disparaging remarks about the French, so I do not think that he would welcome a French chairman. I do not think that this new clause provides the sort of security for 10 years ahead—which is about the time that we are speaking of—if the hon. Gentleman accepts my logic, which I do not think he does. It does not provide the sort of protection that is desirable to make sure that there is proper competition, that the ferries are not driven out of business, and that we renew our flexibility with regard to our communications with Europe.

In the face of what I have heard so far, I am not persuaded by any manner of means by the speech made by the hon. Gentleman.

For the first time in these proceedings I am not entirely at one with my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), because it would be unfortunate for the operation of the tunnel, if it proceeded, if someone was barred from the job of chief executive simply because he was a Swiss, an Australian or an American. It would be unfortunate if we were to deny someone a job on merit because of his nationality.

My hon. Friend has given us some horrifying information about the present financial position and prospects of the tunnel. I want to ask my hon. Friend the Minister one basic question. There has been a major change from the situation when we were told that investors were queueing up to invest in the tunnel to the present situation, particularly after equity 2, when it seems we came close to total financial disaster. The £206 million was not raised easily. The investors were not queueing up and the Minister must be aware that there were postponements on what is a relatively minor sum in comparison with the whole operation.

That should not surprise us. Many documents have been referred to, but the most interesting and authoritative was the five banks' review, in which two of our joint stock banks participated and in which it was made abundantly clear that they thought that it was virtually impossible for the project to proceed unless some guarantee was given by the Government or some public authority for the borrowings, and that is what the Government have, rightly, set themselves against.

My basic question, which is relevant to the new clause, is: could the Minister tell us, and particularly the investing public, what happens if, as seems likely, the £750 million, which I believe is the sum involved in equity 3, does not come forward within the required time scale? The Minister will be well aware that institutions have shied away from equity investment in the project. Quite apart from all the arguments across the Floor, my hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that it was a difficult job to get that. Some of us will have been horrified to have heard the suggestion that the Governor of the Bank of England had to twist arms. I know nothing about that, but I think that my hon. Friend the Minister will be well aware that it was difficult to get the investors in the institutional network to give a relatively small sum which, in Britain's case, was about £70 million. That is peanuts for our institutions. In insurance companies, unit trusts and other such organisations huge sums are available and they obviously did not like the idea of an equity stake in this operation.

Now we are going to the general public who are not, as some people think, silly people. They know a good investment when they see one and they know a rotten investment when they see one. They put their money into offers such as TSB and British Gas because they considered, rightly, that those were good sensible investments for their savings.

The Minister will be well aware that bearing in mind that investors could lose all I heir money that they would certainly not get any return for at least seven years and that the whole project is not regarded as sound by the institutional investors, it is pretty clear that the investing public, the kind of people who invest £500 or £1,000 in a project, will not look eagerly at this despite the flood of advertising.

Will the Minister tell us, and thereby tell the investing public, what will happen if the £750 million is not raised? Will the project come to a complete end so that everything stops, and, sadly, the institutions will lose the £206 million that they have already invested in equity? Or will some other device be found within the framework of the legislation to carry it forward?

Frankly, I was horrified when it was explained earlier by my hon. Friend the Minister that public funds would be used for the project through the European Investment Bank in which the Government have no direct responsibility. They certainly are because, as my hon. Friend the Minister will be well aware, the autumn statement made it abundantly clear that this year the British Treasury is giving £48 million to the European Investment Bank from taxpayers' funds. He also knows that the bank has a board of management consisting only of the finance Ministers of member states. He knows that this is a European institution which is designed. as its prospectus says, to give loans at attractive rates of interest guaranteed by the funds of member states and the sums are borrowed on the basis of the security of member states.

If the £750 million is not raised, will money be provided by organisations such as the EIB, or will money be provided from foreign banks or foreign investors? The investing public, to whom the Government have been fair in their privatisation project, are entitled to know simply what the score is. In other words, if they put in the £750 million they know that the project will go ahead so long as the loan can be secured. That is clear.

What we are entitled to know is what happens if the £750 million is not raised. Does that mean that the project stops or is some other device found to put the cash in? Our understanding in the past was always that a crucial element to progress was the raising of £750 million from the general public.

Therefore, I hope that the Minister will answer what I think is a simple question in a complicated financial situation. The investing public is entitled to an answer because I have a genuine fear that many investors, people with limited savings, are in danger of losing a lot of their money or of putting their money at unreasonable risk. They are entitled to simple information on what the procedure will be if they do not put their money into this project.

12.15 am

Those who served on the Standing Committee will have been familiar with the rather tired record that my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) played about the Franco, Arabian, Japanese tunnel. We heard it to the point of tedious repetition. He also made references to the difficulties of Eurotunnel in raising equity. It was a remarkable performance for Eurotunnel to raise that money against a background of no measure on the statute book, the concession agreement not in operation and a unique and expensive knocking campaign mounted by competitors and their mouthpieces.

I wonder how my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South would like it if TV-am were raising extra capital on the stock exchange or from its bankers and the BBC ran a knocking campaign of his company designed to undermine the creditworthiness of his operation and to destroy his ability to compete in the market. In short, I wonder whether he would ponder on the business ethics of Flexilink and its spokesmen in using the passage of legislation through this House to try to undermine a new competitor at its birth.

I deprecate the references to Flexilink's ethics which have been totally above board, but if I was by any chance raising a capital sum on the stock market for any business of mine I would certainly welcome the support of the Government and the Bank of England and I would welcome my hon. Friend the Minister as spokesman as I am sure that he would do a good job and would completely destroy any enemy propaganda which all businessmen are used to anyway.

Business men are not used to the sort of wholesale advertising on the scale which has been indulged in by opponents of this legislation.

My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) should not be frightened by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South. I warn him of the dangers of listening too carefully to the flights of fantasy of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South which tend to divorce themselves from reality. The matter for the House is to pass legislation to facilitate the tunnel. The matter of raising finance is for Eurotunnel and not for the Committee. The amendment sets out to control the nationality of senior officers of the concessionaires.

Surely this project has a structure set out under which we understood that £750 million equity was an integral part. That, I understood, was a requirement of the Government. Surely the Minster can say what would happen if the money was not raised from the general public. Is not that a simple request to make?