§ 46. Mr. Wallasked the Minister of Transport what estimates she has made of the time required to complete the 1050 proposed bridge across the Humber, assuming an immediate decision was taken to go ahead and that the work was put in hand at once.
§ 48. Sir C. Osborneasked the Minister of Transport what is the estimated cost, including the approach works, of the proposed Humber bridge; how much the annual maintenance cost will amount to; how long it will take to complete; when it will start; and if she will place a copy of the plan and the engineer's report in the Library.
§ Mrs. CastleThe estimated cost of the bridge and approaches is about £13 million, annual maintenance may amount to £40,000 and the works would take about seven years to complete if a decision was taken to go ahead immediately.
The start is dependent on Government decisions following completion of the current planning studies on the development of Humberside.
Plans were deposited in the Private Bill Office for the purpose of the Humber Bridge Act, 1959. A report by consultant engineers was made in September, 1955, to Hull Corporation. If the hon. Members wish to see this report, I suggest that they approach the Corporation.
§ Mr. WallDoes not the right hon. Lady agree that further delay in setting in motion the study for this bridge will lead to increased costs and increased congestion? Does not her reply justify starting on this scheme, particularly in view of the Government's decision to apply to join the Common Market?
§ Mrs. CastleWe have always made it clear that we are awaiting the development study of the Humberside Region and a report should be available towards the end of this year. A decision on the bridge will then take its place among the decisions on that report.
§ Sir C. OsborneWhy should hon. Members be asked to go to a local authority to see plans as important as this and not to have them placed in the Library? Surely we are entitled to be able to see the plans in the House. Secondly, will the right hon. Lady bear in mind that the ports both north and south of the Humber require road 1051 improvements—my hon. Friend has mentioned that at Beverley—and that several are far more important than the building of the bridge? Will she look at this matter again from that angle?
§ Mrs. CastleIf the report were my property, I would be only too delighted to place a copy in the Library, but it is the property of the Hull Corporation to which the report was made, which is why I asked hon. Members to approach the Corporation.
It is because there are various implications for road schemes that we must await the outcome of the develoment study.
§ Mr. McNamaraIs my right hon. Friend aware that on Humberside we welcome the extra emphasis that has been put on to the east-west roads in this period? Can she give an undertaking that, while we are awaiting a decision about the bridge, and before the bridge is operational, important rail links, like those between Barton-on-Humber and Humberside and Grimsby, which are essential to the economy of the area, will not be closed?
§ Mrs. CastleWe try to keep all the aspects of the transport requirements in mind.
Sir C. OsbomeIn view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek leave to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.
§ 49. Sir C. Osborneasked the Minister of Transport if she will call for an estimate of the cost of building an immersed concrete tube tunnel under the Humber, with the estimated savings in maintenance, before she authorises the building of a traditional Humber bridge.
§ Mr. SwinglerThe possibility of an immersed concrete tube was examined and rejected before the Humber Bridge Board was given powers, in the Humber Bridge Act, 1959, to build a bridge. I will however, draw the attention of the local authorities concerned to the hon. Member's Question, in case subsequent developments in technique are considered to justify further examination of this alternative.
§ Sir C. OsborneCould the Parliamentary Secretary say whether the Government saw these plans for a submerged tunnel, which he says have been rejected, or are the Government proposing to act on these recommendations, on plans drawn up by local government that does not have the kind of money to implement them, as in the case of the bridge?
§ Mr. SwinglerThe hon. Gentleman is not correct in either case. These plans were considered by expert consultants, who reported against the idea of an immersed concrete tube. This is a local authority project about which we are talking, and therefore the suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman that this should be reviewed will naturally be referred to it.
§ Mr. WallCould the hon. Gentleman say whether the suggestion of a barrage with the road on top has been considered?
§ Mr. SwinglerThat does not arise on this Question, but I will certainly investigate this and write to the hon. Gentleman.