HC Deb 17 October 1973 vol 861 cc149-51W
39. Mr. Redmond

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what repre sentations have been made to him about the deferment of the Manchester Piccadilly to Victoria railway tunnel; and what replies he has sent.

Mr. Peyton

I have received many representations and met a deputation from the Greater Manchester Council and the Passenger Transport Authority in Manchester last week. I made it clear that although restrictions on public expenditure will not permit a start on the project in 1974–75 I have not yet decided on its merits but will do so before the end of this year.

52. Mr. Rose

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received concerning the Manchester Piccadilly-Victoria line.

Mr. Peyton

I have received representations from Members of Parliament, local authorities and other bodies. I told a deputation from the Greater Manchester Council last week that I would reach a decision on the merits of the project by the end of the year.

Mr. Rose

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will state the current costing of tie Manchester Piccadilly-Victoria line including rolling stock and the expected cost of the scheme if commenced in 1976, 1977, and 1978, respectively, at current rates of inflation.

Mr. Peyton

The estimated cost of the submitted scheme is now £88.3 million at 1973 prices. There is no present reason to expect the real costs of the project to vary with particular starting dates.

Mr. Rose

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the cost of the Manchester Piccadilly and Victoria line expressed as a percentage of the cost of a third London airport, Concorde and the Channel Tunnel, respectively.

Mr. Peyton

Picc-Vic would be much less costly than the projects mentioned. But a more meaningful comparison would be with other public transport schemes.

Mr. Alfred Morris

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received on his refusal to provide immediate grant support for the proposed Manchester Central Underground Rail Link; if he will list the representative bodies from which representations have been received; what replies he has made; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Peyton

I have received representations from the following bodies:

  • SELNEC Passenger Transport Authority.
  • Greater Manchester Metropolitan County Council.
  • Manchester City Council.
  • New Cheshire County Council.
  • Stockport Metropolitan District Council.
  • Tameside Metropolitan District Council.
  • Bolton Metropolitan District Council.
  • County Borough of Rochdale.
  • County Borough of Bolton.
  • County Borough of Oldham.
  • County Borough of Stockport.
  • Borough of Middleton.
  • Borough of Dukinfield.
  • Borough of Radcliffe.
  • Borough of Farnworth.
  • Borough of Mossley.
  • Cheadle and Gatley Urban District Council.
  • Bowdon Urban District Council.
  • Tyldesley Urban District Council.
  • Whitefield Urban District Council.
  • Horwich Urban District Council.
  • Kearsley Urban District Council.
  • Little Lever Urban District Council.
  • Hazel Grove and Bramhall Urban District Council.
  • Tintwistle Rural District Council.
  • Marple Labour Party.
  • Labour Party Temporary Co-ordinating Committee of Rochdale Metropolitan District.
  • Atherton Trades Council and Labour Party.
  • Radcliffe and District Trades Council.
  • The Liberal Party, Greater Manchester Region.
  • Newton Heath Ward Labour Party.
  • Norwest Co-operative Society Limited.
  • Alexandra Ward Labour Party.
  • Bolton West Conservative Association.
  • Bury Trades Council.
  • Manchester Chamber of Commerce and Industry.
  • Transport 2000.

I have told the authority a decision will be reached on the merits of the project by the end of the year.