Debates between Kwasi Kwarteng and Kelvin Hopkins during the 2010-2015 Parliament

High Speed Rail (Preparation) Bill

Debate between Kwasi Kwarteng and Kelvin Hopkins
Wednesday 26th June 2013

(11 years, 3 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kwasi Kwarteng Portrait Kwasi Kwarteng
- Hansard - -

I am not sure which citizens of that famous French city my hon. Friend has been speaking to, but the ones we met were very enthusiastic, as were people in other cities. Lille, for example, has been transformed by the high-speed rail—of course it has, and that is a good thing. No one in France is suggesting that the high-speed rail network should be closed down and the country should go back to what it had before.

There are clear economic benefits. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley) suggested that freight transport is growing at 10% a year. How on earth can that growth in freight be accommodated without substantial investment in our railway infrastructure and without building a high-speed rail network? As my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) said, simply building another line that is not a high-speed line will cost just as much and not give the benefits, and no one is suggesting that as an alternative.

Kelvin Hopkins Portrait Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I am suggesting precisely that alternative. I have a scheme for a dedicated freight route, capable of carrying lorries on trains, that would cost a fraction of HS2 and take all the freight off the north-south lines, freeing them up for more passengers.

Kwasi Kwarteng Portrait Kwasi Kwarteng
- Hansard - -

I am pleased that we have Members with such fertile imaginations in this House that the hon. Gentleman has his own scheme. I have not looked at it, though, so I could not possibly comment.

What is clear to me, as a Member for a south-east constituency that is very built-up and highly residential, is that disputes about infrastructure spending are inevitable. I suggested that when the Tower of London was built, people objected to it on quite worthy grounds. There have been objections to every piece of infrastructure spending in this country for hundreds of years, but that does not mean that we have not gone ahead and built the railways or the ports. We are a commercial nation with incredible skills in engineering. We have, or we used to have, great architecture and engineering—I am not casting aspersions on current architecture, just suggesting that it was very good in the past—so there is no reason to suggest, as some have, that HS2 will be a blight on the countryside. It will change of course, but as has been pointed out, Isambard Kingdom Brunel and other Victorians completely transformed the landscape of this country, but they did not make it worse in any way.

European Union Bill

Debate between Kwasi Kwarteng and Kelvin Hopkins
Monday 24th January 2011

(13 years, 8 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kwasi Kwarteng Portrait Kwasi Kwarteng
- Hansard - -

What does the hon. Gentleman say to the idea that even if amendment 11 were made, it would not bolster parliamentary sovereignty, because Government Whips will just whip through decisions about what is significant?

Kelvin Hopkins Portrait Kelvin Hopkins
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that everybody does what the Whips tell them, but that is not the case. If he looks at the history of the 13 years of Labour Government, he will find that there were rebellions—significant differences of view between certain Back Benchers and the Whips—on many serious votes, the most important of which was perhaps the Iraq war, when 139 Members, including me, voted against the Government, despite the Whips.

Kwasi Kwarteng Portrait Kwasi Kwarteng
- Hansard - -

What was the result?

Kelvin Hopkins Portrait Kelvin Hopkins
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The decision in favour of going to war was made with Conservative support. In the end, we are accountable not to the Whips. Clearly, we have a party system, and we are elected as party politicians, which I understand. By and large, on most things, we are guided by the Whips, but on some matters of fundamental principle, such as giving further powers to the EU or going to war, we must say, “What I believe and what I believe my electorate want is more important even than what the Whips advise.” I hesitate to say that while my Front-Bench colleagues are listening, but in the end, we must occasionally take a stand.