HC Deb 24 November 1971 vol 826 cc1324-5
15. Mr. Douglas

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the meetings which have taken place between his Department and groups desirous of developing facilities at Foulness.

Mr. Peter Walker

Meetings have been held with the Thames Aeroport Group and the Thames Estuary Development Company to find out more about their proposals. The discussions have been exploratory and imply no Government commitment to these organisations or to the ideas which they put forward.

Mr. Douglas

While thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask him to give an unequivocal assurance that the Government will not support port development at Foulness with adjacent industrial development which would militate against the expansion of port development in other parts of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Walker

No. I cannot give that assurance. We are, however, studying the full regional planning aspects of the varying types of development that could take place at Foulness, and until we have completed our inquiries, which are taking into consideration all the environmental and planning aspects, we cannot announce what form our decision will take.

Mr. Tebbit

Is my right hon. Friend prepared to meet some of the people who believe that they can still house-train aeroplanes and make them decent to live with near to our big cities, thus obviating the need for the expensive pouring of concrete over large areas of the east coast of the country?

Mr. Walker

I am always pleased to meet my hon. Friend.

Mr. Crosland

This is a serious matter. Will the Minister bear in mind that opposition to Foulness—not only local opposition but that from informed quarters—is still very strong indeed? While recognising that he is in the midst of the planning stage, may we have an assurance that when this planning stage in his Department is concluded, he will be willing to have a last reconsideration of whether the case for Foulness still stands, and will he let the House have a final opportunity of discussing the issue?

Mr. Walker

No, Sir. The case for Foulness certainly stands. The factors have not altered since we debated the subject and there is no doubt of the need for a third London Airport. The site chosen is, I am sure, the best site in environmental and regional terms.