§ 2.47 p.m.
§ LORD SHINWELLMy 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 what is the total sum expended to date on research, development and production by Her Majesty's Government on the Concorde aircraft, and the estimated cost of the Channel Tunnel and Maplin airport.
§ THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN)My Lords, by June 30, 1973, the United Kingdom Government expenditure on Concorde research, development and production since the Anglo-French Treaty was signed in 1962 has been £504 million, at the economic conditions prevailing when the costs were incurred. The latest estimated cost of the Channel Tunnel is £468 million, divided between the United Kingdom and France. The railway link from London to Folkestone is estimated to cost an additional £120 million. The latest estimated cost of a fully-developed two-runway airport at Maplin is £480 million. 1650 In addition, the costs for Phase I of the Maplin project on reclamation and surface access are estimated to be £140 million and £160 million respectively.
§ LORD SHINWELLMy Lords, I am obliged for the information the noble Lord has conveyed, but he is probably aware that these estimates are usually falsified. May I ask him three short questions? First of all, would he not agree that the expenditure that is likely to be entailed, particularly in view of the potential deficit in the balance of payments over the next few years, would make such expenditure prohibitive and impose very serious financial burdens on the country? Secondly, have the Government considered the possibility, indeed the probability, of a huge diversion of labour and materials from the export trade because of the need for deploying materials and labour on Maplin and on the Channel Tunnel? Thirdly, would the noble Lord also say whether the Government have decided fully to consult the persons involved over the Maplin project?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, on the first point, it is unlikely that the estimates for the Tunnel and Maplin will be falsified except to the extent that there is a change in the value of money, because, unlike the Concorde project, which was going into new realms of technology, the techniques for these two projects are very well understood. On the second point, the Government would not have contemplated continuing with these projects had they thought it would be outside the power of the nation to meet them. I think it is worth while bearing in mind, for example, that the expenditure on Maplin, if that project goes forward, will average about £48 million per annum to 1990.
As to the diversion of labour and materials, these are not labour-intensive industries and it is not thought that the amount of labour and material diversion will be a serious drag on the resources of the nation. On the fourth point, as to whether the Government have consulted, the answer is, Yes: the Government have been consulting and, as the noble Lord will be aware, it is intended to consult further before any funds are committed to the reclamation project at Maplin.
§ LORD SHINWELLMy Lords, on the final point in reply to my supplementary question, does the noble Lord agree that Mr. Ripon only gave a promise that people involved in South Essex and elsewhere would be consulted about the roads and the direction of the signposts, but not on the principle involved; and ought they not to be consulted on the principle before the project is proceeded with?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, we shall of course be discussing this point to-morrow, but the British Airports Authority has given an undertaking that it will discuss with the authorities concerned any matters that affect them in any way.
§ LORD BALOGHMy Lords, does the noble Lord consider that the Maplin project and the Channel Tunnel, inasmuch as they are competitive, ought to reduce each other's value for the nation? Secondly, has any cost/benefit study been made, and will it be published, to show whether the further development of Southampton and Liverpool—both of which are very much better situated so far as overseas trade is concerned—would be better than the development of a port which is almost as badly situated as Rotterdam?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, on the first point. Her Majesty's Government do not accept that the Maplin project and the Channel Tunnel will be competitive; they believe that they will be complementary. On the second point, this is a matter which will be examined by the National Ports Council before there is any question of the seaport being established at Maplin.
§ LORD BALOGHMy Lords, will the noble Lord not admit that the Maplin seaport and the Channel Tunnel are competitive? After all, the building of the Maplin seaport at that point can only be for traffic with Europe, because in every other way there is no question that a number of ports in England are much better situated.
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, this really is a matter for the National Ports Council to consider; and of course there will not be a seaport at Maplin unless it is shown to be in the national interest and to be viable in itself.
§ THE EARL OF LAUDERDALEMy Lords, can the noble Lord tell us whether, if the Channel Tunnel goes forward, its financing will be a charge on the taxpayer only to the extent that the Government give a guarantee of funds raised on the world market? Can he also tell us whether the manpower employed on the Channel Tunnel will be no more than the manpower now employed in building Dungeness Power Station?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, on the second point, I cannot make that particular comparison; but on the' first point, I certainly confirm what my noble friend has said. The fact is that these three projects are not really comparable in the way in which they affect the public purse.
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, can the noble Lord say whether the figures he has given for Maplin are still in 1972 terms; and, if so, may we have them in present-day terms? Further, can he confirm that the figures he gave include the cost of the access routes? If they do, how is it that those can be estimated when it has not yet been decided which routes should be taken?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, the answer to the first question is "Yes"; they are still in 1972 terms.
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, the second question was whether we might have them in present-day terms.
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, I am afraid I cannot work that out in my head, and I have not got it down on paper. I am afraid I have forgotten what the other point was because the noble Lord has now driven it out of my head.
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, the noble Lord has not told us why these figures are not expressed in current terms; and my other point was whether he will confirm that the cost includes the cost of the access routes. If he can confirm that, can he say how the Government arrive at the cost if they have not decided which routes to take?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, the fact is that we have been working on the 1972 estimates all along and it has not been felt necessary to up-date them. On the point about the access routes, I 1653 do not think there is any wide difference between the costs of the access routes. Incidentally, this figure not only covers the cost of the access routes; it also covers access in general, including the construction of a terminal at King's Cross and also the rolling stock for access to Maplin.
§ LORD AVEBURYMy Lords, is not the consultation being offered by the Department of the Environment to the people of Essex entirely bogus in that it is the equivalent to offering a condemned man the choice between hanging, execution and poisoning?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, whenever a project of this kind is put forward always the people within the area are affected. The question is, how far can we balance the extent to which they are affected with the national interest. I do not accept that the consultation is in any way bogus, because the consultation is designed to ensure that whatever plans are made are adapted as closely as possible to the needs of the area.
§ LORD ORR-EWINGMy Lords, has my noble friend noticed that the French are bearing half the cost of Concorde, that they are going to bear half the cost of the Channel Tunnel, that they are building at Roissy an international airport of comparable size and that they are not squealing that they cannot afford these things: they are going right ahead with them?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNYes, my Lords, I have noticed that, and I think it would be well for us all to take note of it.
§ LORD MAYBRAY-KINGMy Lords, on the question of Maplin, can the noble Lord give us any estimate of the increase in the wealth of the nation as a result of the land reclamation feature of the Maplin project?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, I think it was estimated at £10,000 per acre, and there will be 14,000 acres; so probably the noble Lord is better at making calculations than I am.
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, will the noble Lord tell his noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing, that although the French are building at Roissy they are closing down Le Bourget, and that we shall be Com- 1654 pelled to keep open both Heathrow and Gatwick? Will he also tell his noble friend that Roissy is quite near to Paris while Maplin is way out?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, the noble Lord has told my noble friend, so I need not comment.