High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill

Debate between Gareth Johnson and Andrew Bridgen

Monday 28th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), especially when I agree with so many of his remarks. I draw the attention of the House to my previous declaration: not only does phase 2 of HS2 bisect my beautiful constituency; it runs within 100 yards of my home.

Since the House debated and voted on the paving Bill for HS2 in June last year, many questions surrounding the project have been asked, but precious few have been answered. The Government are continuing to block the Major Projects Authority report on HS2, an issue raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) and the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel). I raised this issue most recently with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in this place on 17 December 2013 only to be told that there was no need to publish the MPA report because there is no shortage of reports on HS2. That is true, but most of them are sponsored by the Government or HS2, and most of them have had their evidence totally discredited. The continued suppression of the MPA report on HS2 must be a great source of concern to hon. Members who should surely have all available evidence to hand, especially on a project of this cost and magnitude that will have such a huge impact on the lives of so many of our citizens.

Cost continues to be a running issue for HS2. We know from last year that the initial cost of £33 billion increased to more than £42 billion, with a further £7.5 billion cost for rolling stock. That is all in 2011 money, with no account taken for interest payable on borrowed money. Indeed, it could be considered that, with inflation, the cost is now well in excess of the £50 billion limit set by the shadow Chancellor to trigger opposition from Labour. As evidence from international rail projects suggests an average overspend of 45% and a lead time of 13 years adding to the cost of rolling stock, nothing has persuaded me that we could not well be looking at a sum of more than £70 billion or possibly £100 billion to see HS2 through.

Another question that we are struggling to get the answer to concerns evidence of overcrowding on the west coast main line and the capacity issue in general. On 6 January this year I received a response to my written question to the Department for Transport asking how many passengers in the previous year had used the line during peak periods between Euston and Birmingham and Euston and Manchester. I was directed to statistics that show rail passenger numbers on trains throughout the day in several major cities, as well as levels of peak crowding, but these are not available by route. It surprises me that the Government could not have made available the actual numbers on the west coast main line to demonstrate the case that this line is full. Again, the evasiveness and the lack of ready statistics to back up the case for HS2 fuels suspicions about the reasoning behind the whole project.

Then there is the issue of blight, which has been raised by many Members. The project is causing immense blight. It has been estimated that 240,000 homes are within 1 km of the proposed line and are likely to suffer losses that are mostly ineligible for compensation under the Government’s current policy.

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

I am one of the few Members who has both a high-speed line and a high-speed station in my constituency. Although expensive for passengers to use, it has undoubtedly attracted inward investment without the kind of environmental impact that we once anticipated. Will my hon. Friend therefore concede that there can be positives from high-speed rail, and that that should not be overlooked?

[Andrew Bridgen]

I will concede that if we chuck £50 billion of taxpayers’ money at anything, some of it will stick to the wall and we will get some result from that, but we could argue about whether that is the best way of spending £50 billion.

I echo the thoughts of the HS2 Action Alliance on the Government’s most recent statement on property compensation. People may well go to their graves having been locked into homes made totally unsaleable by the HS2 route. Then there are the environmental questions. The initial 60-day consultation period for a 50,000-page environmental statement, the equivalent of 40 versions of “War and Peace”, raises questions, as does the Environmental Audit Committee report, which recently uncovered the fact that 40% of the route has yet even to be examined.

The evasiveness of the Government on this matter has not escaped the general public, and no amount of expensive Government-sponsored reports into supposed benefits will convince them. A ComRes poll last month found that 52% of Britons oppose the current plans to build HS2, whereas only about 30% support the project. This confirmed the trend from previous polls: there is a solid majority of the public opposed to HS2.

We have a Bill before us today which raises far more questions than it answers, and a case built around PR and spin rather than evidence and a foundation of fact—suppressed reports, hurried consultations and unanswered questions. This is not the way to spend more than £50 billion of taxpayers’ money. I therefore urge all right hon. and hon. Members to vote against the Bill and to support the amendment.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Gareth Johnson and Andrew Bridgen

Tuesday 26th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

1. What recent representations he has received on his proposals to create fewer and more equally sized constituencies.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

5. What recent representations he has received on his proposals to create fewer and more equally sized constituencies.

[The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Nick Clegg)]

A range of views have been expressed to me, in correspondence and discussion, on the Government’s proposals to create fewer and more equally sized constituencies. In addition, the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill had five days of debate on the Floor of the House for its Committee stage.