§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the estimated acreage of land required for the most economical road corridor from the North Circular Road to the proposed Maplin airport, and for the high-speed rail links proposed.
§ BARONESS YOUNGMy Lords, the route recommended by the consultants for a joint road/rail corridor between the M.16 and Maplin would require up to 1,400 acres of land. Within the M.16 road traffic would use the network already proposed for Greater London. A study of possible routes for the rail links between the M.16 and King's Cross has yet to be completed.
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, in view of the fact that another thousand acres will apparently be required for the roadworks, as well as the fact that alongside the whole length of this roadway there will be a nuisance at least equal to that created by the new airport, is this scheme not discredited on amenity grounds as well as on economic grounds?
§ BARONESS YOUNGMy Lords, as regards the acreage of land involved, the first stage of the reclamation project would produce approximately 11,500 extra acres of land.
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, is the noble Baroness saying that a thousand acres of urban land will be required in order to get to this new land; and is that not an offset to the amenity advantage which she has put forward in our 447 debates? May I further ask the noble Baroness whether she will be good enough to say now when the new estimates for which I have asked will be available?
§ BARONESS YOUNGMy Lords, I cannot accept that the 1,400 acres would all be urban land. Obviously, the route would go through some parts of the country as well as through some towns. As regards the breakdown, the land required for the road is 930 acres and for the rail link is 470 acres. I cannot yet give a date for the publication of the choice of access road, but it will be as soon as possible.
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, I asked the noble Baroness whether she can tell me when the new estimates for which I asked in my original Question will be made public.
§ BARONESS YOUNGMy Lords, they will be made public as soon as possible. The only estimates that we can give at the moment are on the costs as indicated in the consultation document on the routes, and they range from £95 million to £120 million at 1973 prices.
§ LORD WYNNE-JONESMy Lords, does the reply of the noble Baroness mean that there is to be one corridor including both the road and the rail links? I think she referred to one corridor. Does that mean that the road and the rail are necessarily to be linked together?
§ BARONESS YOUNGMy Lords, it is the intention that the road and the rail links will be in one corridor, and it is thought that it will be approximately 100 metres wide.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, am I to conclude from the reply of the noble Baroness to my noble friend's question about when these figures will be published, that the answer is that she does not know? I think she said, "as soon as possible", which might be any time up to 1980. If these figures are so long delayed, does she think it possible that by then the economic situation and its implications in relation to Maplin will be fully understood by the Government?
§ BARONESS YOUNGMy Lords, a decision has not yet been taken on what 448 will be the accepted road and rail route to Maplin, so it is not yet possible to say what will be its cost. The figures will be considered in the light of the review of the Maplin project, and we must await the outcome of the report to Parliament.
§ THE EARL OF ONSLOWMy Lords, as the Minister has been dealing with 1973 prices, can she give us a slightly more up-to-date version of what the prices will be in the long run? Also, can she say what cost-inflation the Government think will enter into these figures?
§ BARONESS YOUNGMy Lords, in the review which we have undertaken to bring before Parliament, increased prices and the effect of higher oil prices on the air industry will be considered.
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, will the noble Baroness make quite clear to her noble friend that thoughout last year the figures which he used to convince the House that the scheme was practicable were 1972 figures, and not 1973 figures?
§ BARONESS YOUNGMy Lords, that is perfectly true, but that was because the Bill first went before another place in October, 1972. Those figures were kept for the convenience of everybody, so that the same figures were being discussed while the Bill was before both Houses of Parliament.