§ 21. Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to what extent the proximity of the Channel Tunnel was taken into account when Foulness was chosen as the site of the proposed new airport to serve the London area.
§ Mr. Anthony GrantThe Government were fully aware of the Channel Tunnel proposal when deciding on Maplin as the location of the third London airport.
§ Mr. AdleyWhile recognising the unacceptability of inland sites as long as aircraft remain noisy, may I ask my hon. 1066 Friend whether he would not agree that if the Channel Tunnel is given the go-ahead it will tend to invalidate many of the assumptions on which the need for a huge new third airport in the South East is based? Is he further aware that the tunnel and the advanced passenger train will have enormous effects on the viability of short-haul aircraft movements into and from London as aircraft get bigger and quieter? Will he undertake that if it is decided to go ahead with the tunnel the Government will look at the size and scope of Foulness itself?
§ Mr. GrantThe Roskill Commission estimated that at most the tunnel might delay the need for extra airport capacity by less than a year, and we would not disagree with that view. We are examining the point further in our Channel Tunnel studies.
§ Mr. Hugh JenkinsDoes not the hon. Gentleman agree that the rise in air traffic is phenomenal? Is he aware that the number of movements at Heathrow is 50 per cent. up on the figure for 1963, when the Wilson Committee said that it was already far too high? Is it not necessary to operate all kinds of measures to reduce the impact of noise on particular sections of the community?