Page 136' for us to pursue. It is doubtful whether the Tunnel would be a greater attraction to tourists than improved sea services, since it would not do away with customs and other formalities.
The Minister of Civil Aviation does not think that the Tunnel would necessarily be detrimental to the expansion of air traffic. Some air traffic, particularly to Paris, might be diverted to the Tunnel, but this would not seriously affect the demand for more speedy transit than can be provided by surface routes. If, however, it were proposed to construct the Tunnel while there are still severe limitations on the national investment programme, the Minister would prefer to see money and resources devoted to the construction of civil aerodromes and other aviation purposes.
6. Summary.-The general view of Ministers is, therefore, unanimously against the construction of a Tunnel at an early date or, indeed, so long as we have seriously to restrict our investment plans. And that is likely to be a long time.
In addition to the military objections, there are strong economic objections to providing the necessary resources-in men, materials and money-for this particular project in preference to many others which would be of greater national advantage. And this applies even in the field of competing transport projects. Improved civil aviation and train ferries are much better, and quicker, value for money than a Channel Tunnel. If it were proposed, as part of a programme for improving European transport, that other nations should find part of the resources required to improve communications between this island and the Continent, it would still be true that a Channel Tunnel would be a second-best investment of these resources. And it seems likely that the technical inferiority of the Tunnel to other means of cross-Channel transport will become more and more marked in the future.
7. I, therefore, recommend that the Cabinet should record a decision against the construction of a Tunnel. It is for consideration whether any public statement to this effect should be made, either in the House of Commons or, if the question is raised at Strasbourg, in the Council of Europe.
Privy Council Office, S. W. 1, 15th July, 1949.
H. D.
Page 136
37273
Page 136
B 2
67