§ 2.35 p.m.
§ LORD BYERSMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will produce, before the Stansted Inquiry takes evidence, an objective and independent report containing the estimated costs likely to be incurred in the development of Stansted itself and other sites which are likely to be considered for London's third airport.]
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, the preparation of an objective and independent report on costs and all the other aspects of the third London airport problem will be a matter for the Inquiry itself on the basis of evidence presented by, or sought from, the Government, the British Airports Authority or others such as consultants. The Government will, of course, give the new Inquiry all possible assistance at all times.
§ LORD BYERSMy Lords, I thank the noble Lord for answering the Question. May I ask whether it would not be better to set up an independent technical committee to provide objective estimates, rather than to leave it to the protagonists and the opponents of the various schemes, because they are producing very widely varying figures for exactly the same facilities?
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Byers, appears to be getting very near to the proposal that you have an inquiry into an inquiry, and set up a preliminary committee before you start the work of the main committee. But 88 as I see the way it will work out, there will be this objective body, or Commission, however it is composed, and a number of objective and independent bodies will present evidence to it.
§ LORD BYERSMy Lords, I think the noble Lord has misunderstood the point. Does he not think it right—because presumably the Commission will not itself consist of technically qualified experts—to have a small technical body to give an objective view, for instance on the cost of the railway access to one airport and to another, so that there may be a proper comparison without the lobbying that goes on?
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, I quite agree with the noble Lord that this to a very large extent is a technical matter, but the important thing in all these matters is the establishment of the truth. But as to how we can arrive at the truth will be a matter for consultation with the Opposition which I hope will begin within the next few days.
§ LORD OGMOREMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, whether this committee is bound by the term, "Third London Airport"? Is it not a fact that there is a growing body of opinion which thinks that a new international airport is needed, but not necessarily in the London area?
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, this is a point which the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has put before, and I do not think that we ought to go over the ground again. Almost certainly there will be a need for another international airport in an area other than London, but no serious body has yet suggested that there is not a need for a third London airport.
§ LORD LEATHERLANDMy Lords, something must be wrong here, because I find myself agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Byers. I feel that if the respective cases—
§ LORD LEATHERLANDMy Lords, does not my noble friend feel that if the respective cases are put before the tribunal in respect of number one, two, three or four suggested airport there should be an objective set of evidence compiled by somebody like the Treasury Solicitor who 89 could put it impartially before the Tribunal?
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, my own impression was that I was agreeing with the noble Lord at the end of the cross-questioning. I am glad to think, therefore, that indirectly I might even be in accord with my noble friend Lord Leatherland.