§ 18. Mr. Maxwellasked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will announce the Government's plans for the South-East region.
§ 19. Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what progress is being made towards the implementation of the South-East Study; and with what other Departments consultation is taking place.
§ 29. Mr. Bostonasked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs when the review of the South-East Study will be completed.
§ Mr. William RodgersWe are making good progress on the review of policy for the South-East in consultation with all the appropriate departments. It is too soon to say when the job will be completed.
§ Mr. MaxwellIs my hon. Friend aware that most people in this region view with concern the planned increase of 3½ million people in this area? Is he further aware of the urgent need to make certain that good farming land is not irretrievably lost? Finally, will he bear in mind the urgent need to know the Government's long-term plans and, further, can he tell 1354 us whether it is true that the Channel Tunnel is likely to be abandoned?
§ Mr. RodgersWe are looking very closely at the problem of the South-East, which is a very difficult one, and we are examining the study undertaken for the previous Government. As soon as we see that the position is clear we shall certainly make an announcement.
§ Mr. DigbyCan the Minister say whether general agreement has been reached with the Ministry of Housing on the general outline of these proposals?
§ Mr. RodgersThere is full agreement with the Ministry of Housing on all matters concerning the South-East Study. Interim steps were necessary to deal with the immediate problem of London's housing. We do not intend long-term plans to be the enemy of short-term needs.
§ Mr. BostonIs the Minister aware that the outcome of this review of the South-East Study is eagerly awaited in Kent, where the people were considerably disappointed that when that study of the last Government was produced it did not take into account a number of major proposals contained in the Kent Development Plan? Can my hon. Friend give an assurance that he and his right hon. Friend will take into account those major points, particularly those concerning Sheppey and Aylesford?
§ Mr. RodgersI can give that assurance. We shall examine with the greatest care all the points raised by my hon. Friend and other hon. Members concerned with planning authorities in the South-East.
§ Mr. AllasonSince the majority of the 3½ million increase comes by way of natural increase, may we have an undertaking that the Government do not intend to interfere with the natural process of breeding?
§ Mr. RodgersAny question of interfering with the natural process of population growth is not a matter for my Department.
§ Mr. LiptonIf we cannot decide natural processes, can my hon. Friend give an assurance that the revised proposals to be announced do not accept the 3½ million increase envisaged by the 1355 previous Administration? Does he realise that it is of vital importance to diminish the pressure on London's housing?
§ Mr. RodgersYes. We fully understand that the size of the population to be catered for in the 1970s and 1980s bears closely on the plans that we shall prepare. We realise in particular that the rate of migration into the South-East accepted by the previous Government is one factor in particular which must undergo the very closest scrutiny.
§ Mr. HeathDoes the hon. Member realise that during the election campaign his right hon. Friend rejected the whole South-East Study; that a fortnight ago his right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government implemented the first half of it, and that we are now awaiting with some eagerness the moment when he himself will announce that the remainder of the study will be implemented, after an unnecessary delay?
§ Mr. RodgersThe important thing is to make the right decisions. The previous Government produced a Study for the South-East which we regard in many respects as inadequate. We are examining it and the assumptions upon which it was based.
§ Mr. SpeakerQuestions to the Prime Minister.
§ Dame Joan VickersOn a point of order. Question No. 27 has not been reached. I presume that I shall receive a Written Reply. May I make a correction in it, by substituting "10 sq. ft." for "100 sq. ft."? This will make a tremendous difference to the type of answer that I receive.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Lady's tremendous difference will be noted.