§ 20. Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the Channel Tunnel.
§ The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths)I have nothing to add to the replies given by my right hon. Friend to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Dodds-Parker) on 20th October and 28th November.—[Vol. 843, c. 150 and Vol. 847, c. 100.]
§ Mr. AdleyI welcome the move towards turning the Channel Tunnel into a reality. Does my hon. Friend not agree that it is strategic planning madness to have two different Departments planning both the Channel Tunnel and Foulness Airport? Are not the two schemes bound to interact upon each other? Will he further agree that the Foulness decision should be delayed until we know whether we are to have a Channel Tunnel?
§ Mr. GriffithsMy hon. Friend is entirely right to say that it would be strategic planning madness if the two were separated, but the whole point in having a Department of the Environment is that transport and land use planning have been brought together. Therefore, on that point my hon. Friend, with the greatest respect, is wrong. Of course there is an interaction between these matters, and we are keeping that aspect under the fullest review at all times. We shall make known to the House our conclusions as soon as it is practicable to do so.
§ Mr. TilneyIn any planning for the Channel Tunnel will my hon. Friend bear in mind the interests of the North-West and the North, and particularly the rail links round London?
§ Mr. GriffithsYes, Sir. The Channel Tunnel, at least potentially, should give to British Rail a considerably new additional opportunity to move goods and trains into Europe. I am sure that my 1318 right hon. Friend will bear my hon. Friend's point in mind.