14
Page 147
APPENDIX D
MEMORANDUM BY THE MINISTER OF TRANSPORT
The project for a channel tunnel has been examined on a number of occasions. over many years, and in a White Paper (Cmd. 3591) issued in June 1930 the Government of the day announced that :-
"Having regard to the element of doubt as to the feasibility of con- struction, the weakness of the economic case, the great cost, the long period before which capital expenditure would fructify, and the small amount of employment provided in comparison with expenditure, the Government have come to the conclusion that there is no justification for a reversal of the policy pursued by successive Governments for nearly 50 years."
Employment conditions and the European political background were, of course, very different in 1930, but most of the objections of 1930 still hold good.
2. The 1930 scheme was for twin railway tunnels. More recently there has been talk of adding a road tunnel as well. If a traffic tunnel of any sort were feasible, the inclusion of a road tunnel in it would be a practicable engineering proposition but would greatly increase the cost.
3. In 1930, the tunnel was estimated to cost some £30 million. This did. not include approaches, stations or electric locomotives. It would be necessary- at least to double this figure to allow for present costs, and to add to it a large but undetermined figure for the road tunnel. If sums of this magnitude are available for transport works, there are many which would make a far higher economic return for the outlay.
4. The idea of a through route between this country and the Continent is attractive, and the psychological value of such a work to the unity of Europe would be great. But I doubt whether the tunnel would really serve even the interests of United Europe. At present we are linked to Europe by a network of short-sea services working from a number of well-equipped packet ports on. both sides of the Channel. The services are maintained by a fleet of vessels specially constructed for cross-channel traffic. Except for the Belgian-owned Dover-Östend service (operated jointly by the Southern Region (British Railways) and the Belgian Marine), a Dutch vessel shortly to re-open the Flushing route, five French vessels sharing the Newhaven-Dieppe services with the Southern Region, and one of the three train ferries on the Dover-Dunkerque night ferry service, all these continental services are British owned. A railway-owned fleet of 46 vessels totalling 100,000 gross tons and 48 vessels of 36,000 gross tons owned by eight independent liner companies maintain regular passenger and cargo services. These vessels include train and car ferries which are capable- of development.
If the tunnel were built it would seriously damage our merchant shipping; it would monopolise cross-channel traffic, and shipping services would of necessity wither away. In war we should be forced to rely upon one highly vulnerable and necessarily inadequate tunnel, instead of having our communications spread over a large number of ports and routes capable of handling a very large traffic.
5. The maintenance of the present shipping routes and particularly the improvement and development of the train ferry services (at an infinitely less cost than a tunnel) are probably the right policy for us to pursue. There has been an attempt on the subordinate bodies of the Economic Commission for Europe to make the proposed international network of roads an argument for urging the construction of a channel tunnel. The existing cross-channel ferries, suitably improved, should provide the links between this international network on the Continent and its projection in this country.
6. We are now of course-as we were not in 1930-making great efforts to attract tourists, but how far a tunnel, which could not do away with the customs and other gemaliziest would prove a greater attraction Chah4improved sea services is very doubtful.
15
724