The principle that the project should be based on capital raised outside the Government certainly flows directly from that. I do not quarrel on that score. We are concerned with private capital and not public expenditure. My argument is that if the Government's figures are correct there is no need to give both the proposed return to private capital and the Government guarantee. That point of view is supported by many commentators. The only conclusion to be drawn, as the Economist and other newspapers have said, is that if private capital is reluctant to go in other than on the terms offered by the Government, it, too, must be dissatisfied with the Government's figures. That is why we doubt the whole basis upon which we are expected to take a decision.

Already inflation has put certain aspects of the calculations at doubt. Rates of interest have risen enormously, and I doubt whether anyone will predict that they will come down in the period of construction. The rates have risen since the calculations were made, and since then another problem has arisen. I doubt whether anyone took account of the oil difficulties, not only in terms of supply and quantity but also in terms of price. Since the studies were carried out the price of a barrel of oil has increased from one dollar to over three dollars. Those learned in these matters suggest on television that the price might rise to 10 dollars a barrel while construction of the tunnel is in progress. I accept that this does not mean that the same factor has to be applied to the cost of diesel oil or petrol, because, apart from the high costs involved in distribution and refining, a substantial tax element is involved. But I do not think that anyone will deny that the days of plentiful and cheap oil are gone.

Most people will now take a different view about the number of people who might be sending their goods by road to the Continent in 1980 or who will be going on such a journey by car. There should be at least a few question marks put against the Government's certainty. They ask the House—and their supporters dutifully oblige—for a complete blessing of everything in the White Paper. That was the motion which was passed. Presumably the Government will tell us that the House has made a decision.

It is wrong that there has been no opportunity to challenge the figures. My right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby put the matter extremely well and showed that some people were concerned in the early days when he said on 25th October: The whole project seems to assume that we shall never want to economise on oil or face a serious shortage of it. In other words, it is based on the economics of five years ago, and not on the likely economics of 10 years hence."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th October 1973; Vol. 861, c. 1511.] Nevertheless, the House rejected my right hon. Friend's advice. It was prepared to accept all the details in the White Paper, including the fact that the authority will not be able to discriminate between rail and road users in the event of a conflict arising.

A letter in today's Financial Times from a gentleman called Mr. Cornish refers to some discussions which that gentleman had with the advisers who drew up the transport cost-benefit study. It seems from that letter that it never occurred to them to test by the usual ways the basis of the revenue forecasts. The four-minute frequency and the one-hour block time of traffic through the tunnel is an exacting target. It seems from the letter that if it is wrong, quite apart from the other doubts which I have raised about inflation, interest rates and the price of oil, the revenues on which we are all gaily going forward will be extremely wrong.

The Government have suggested that the quantity of literature which has been available and which is so many feet high is adequate. We were laughed out of court when we suggested that it would not have been a bad idea to have had a public inquiry or Select Committee investigation of the substantial evidence which has been compiled. I suggested at the time of Maplin, and I suggest again, that that could well have been achieved by going back to the earlier processes of a Hybrid Bill.

Prior to 1948 every Hybrid Bill had to go through the complete process of a Private Bill as well as all the stages of a Public Bill. That meant that the Government were treated in the same way as any private promoter, local authority or public board. They had to prove their case to a Select Committee. In other words, they had to prove the sense and the expediency of what they were proposing. In 1948 the then Labour Government thought that that was perhaps an excessive requirement for every Hybrid Bill. A substantial number was going through at that time. A substantial number has come through since. There have been a number of key issues, such as the public ownership of industry. That would be a matter which would be decided by the House rather than by all sorts of people turning up to give evidence before a Select Committee. It was proposed that only in some cases would the promoter—namely, the Government—have to prove their case.

The then Conservative Opposition voted against the proposition. They said that every Hybrid Bill should be subjected to the test of examination. They said that people should have the opportunity to present their case before a Select Committee and that the Government should have to prove their case like any other promoter. That is why I asked whether the British Rail Bill would be a Hybrid Bill or a Private Bill. I do not think that British Rail should be put through a different hoop from that which the Government are put through. If they are, will it be open to people to test the whole argument of whether we should have a tunnel when the Bill goes through at a later stage? The Government's motion does not give any opportunity for anyone to contest the basic figures. That is made clear in the White Paper, "The Channel Tunnel". In paragraph 13.4 in page 36 of the White Paper it is said: Provided that the Money Bill is passed,"— and it has been— the powers required for the construction and operation of the Channel Tunnel will be sought by means of a hybrid Bill which will be brought before Parliament in November this year. This will allow those affected by the construction of the Tunnel to be heard by a Select Committee, as well as providing the normal scope for a full examination of the 'public' provisions of the Bill in both Houses. That seems to be a generous gesture on the part of the Government, but they have no alternative. They could not possibly get the Bill through except as a Hybrid Bill. Under the Hybrid Bill procedure those who are affected directly by having works on land which they own or in proximity to where they live will be able to petition against the Bill. However, the substantial body of people concerned with the viability of the project, the nature of the tunnel and the share in the project for British Rail will not be able to test the substantial amount of figures which have been put to us by the usual way of appearing before a committee, the committee having the right to cross-examine and people appearing before it being able to produce witnesses.

In a matter of this sort it seems only right that the Government should be willing to submit their case to such scrutiny and cross-examination. That will give people an opportunity to test the evidence on which the British public will have to agree to a substantial devotion of resources. The cost of the tunnel will not, unless things go wrong, be borne by public expenditure. However, it will lead to the use of substantial resources during the period of construction. In the next few years, possibly as a result of the oil problem or for other reasons such as a substantial recession, we could have substantial regional problems. The injection of the kind of capital about which we are now talking could make an enormous difference to the well-being and development of certain regions.

It will be said, as it was said about Concorde, that we are committed and with such a level of resource use we cannot possibly agree to certain proposals. In the light of that argument, and in the light of environmental problems, my right hon. and hon. Friends have grave doubts about whether it is right to agree to take a further step from what has already been done.

I am not clear about what will happen during the planning procedures. I understand that if an Act is passed the projects under it will be deemed to have planning permission. I understand the Under-Secretary of State to say that the normal planning procedures will apply to the details of the scheme. What is the situation if there is a conflict, if local authorities will not agree to any of the Government's schemes?