High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Select Committee

Kelvin Hopkins Excerpts

Tuesday 29th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Gillan]

I am grateful for my colleague’s offer. I am sure that the Minister will have taken it on board. What worries me is that so many members of environmental groups have been insulted so often in the course of this project that he might have to provide his services, because people might be unwilling to come forward if they are going to be treated so roughly.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I apologise for missing the first part of the right hon. Lady’s speech. I agree with her strongly about the advice of technical experts. However, even technical experts have views. Is it not important to ensure that we hear a range of views about the project and that we get honest technical advice on all the detailed points?

[Mrs Gillan]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, which extends the point that I am making without labouring it. The members of the Select Committee will bring common sense and the view of the Member of Parliament to the Committee, but they will still have to rely on the people who have the expertise to take them through the detail.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Gillan]

That is helpful of my right hon. Friend and I am sure his experience of these matters will be taken into account. It is worth while airing such issues at this stage because if we do not discuss them now, there will be little opportunity for any Members of the House to make their feelings known. It is also important that petitioners know how long their hearing could last. If it is a long, complicated or difficult case, perhaps people will need to come back again after the Committee has taken expert advice, and knowing how much time they need to give up is important.

Amendment (j) has been referred to by others and there are subsequent amendments to it. I think that six members is a good number for the Committee—if I were able to, I would restrict it to six and keep it to those same six people for continuity. However, I am worried about the quorum of three and have suggested that it be increased to four. We in the House set a great deal of store on the balance of Committee membership. When there is a Committee of six and a quorum of three, and three of those members are from the Conservative party, it will be possible for the Committee to sit with only Conservative members. If the quorum was four, we would always ensure a cross-party membership of the quorate Committee. I would like Ministers and the House to think about that issue because a quorum of three would be inequitable. If the Bill is to be scrutinised properly, it must be scrutinised—as other Bills are—with membership from both sides of the House. The danger is in the maths. We are still in the early stages, but I hope that the Committee will let us know how it will divide up the work and update Members who have not been able to attend the sessions, and how it will co-ordinate and ensure continuity between individual Members.

I have tabled amendments (a) and (c) to motion 4 on instruction to the Committee. If the Government are willing to accept amendment (a), that will go a long way to repairing the damage I referred to earlier, which has been done by insulting campaigners, environmentalists, and even MPs alike. That has seemed to be the hallmark of some of the engagement up and down the line, and it is certainly not confined to Chesham and Amersham. We need an understanding of how passionately people feel about these subjects. Indeed, some have engaged experts to provide advice and offer alternatives to the Government on how to do the project better. Those include the new tunnelling proposals that were launched by Chiltern district council, Buckinghamshire county council, Aylesbury Vale district council and the Chiltern Countryside Group last Friday. I know those proposals will be considered very seriously at the highest level, and I hope within HS2 Ltd and by the Committee.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

On that important point, if someone whose views are different from one’s own is abused, that is not the right way to approach politics. We should address the arguments and not commit sins by making ad hominem attacks, to use the Latin phrase. When people have serious concerns about their lives or the environment, they should not be abused. They should be listened to and perhaps if their arguments are wrong they can be countered, but they should not be abused.

[Mr Speaker]

It must be said that there is no better practitioner of that principle in this House than the hon. Gentleman. Whatever is said about anything else, I feel sure that his proposition will command universal assent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Randall (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con)]

It is always a pleasure to follow the Old Contemptible himself, the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson). I may be sitting on the other side of the Chamber, but I shall try to emulate the wisdom and greybeardedness that is associated with him.

Perhaps you should have been in the Chair earlier, Mr Deputy Speaker, when we were discussing what would be done with the £20 fee for the lodging of each petition, and Mr Speaker suggested that it would be down to the Chairman of Ways and Means to be in charge of all that. I suspect that you will need to read the report of the early part of the debate in order to be prepared to deal with some of what was discussed at that stage.

I think that those of us who voted against the motion last night knew that their actions would constitute one of those magnificent but futile gestures, rather along the lines of the charge of the Light Brigade—apart from not being a mistake. The British rather pride themselves on doing something that will be regarded as a great victory despite having been, in fact, a complete defeat. The real work, however, is just beginning. The new Select Committee will listen to the views of constituents and others who have presented petitions, which will form an integral and very important part of the whole process, and I thank those who volunteered to sit on it. Contrary to popular belief, such Committees are not punishment details. The Members of this Committee may begin to think otherwise, but I have been led to believe that they all volunteered freely.

The Committee’s members should be commended, because theirs will probably be some of the most difficult and time-consuming work that the House will have to do for a considerable time. I am sure that they will approach that work in an entirely fair-minded way. While I understood what my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) said about the composition of the quorum, I do not think there will be any question of party political partisanship. After all, as is clear from yesterday’s voting figures, all the political parties back the proposal; it is opposed by just a few mavericks with, perhaps, a bit more foresight.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I should remind the right hon. Gentleman that, although only 50 of us voted for the amendment yesterday, 150 Members were missing from the total vote.

[Sir John Randall]

I am grateful for that intervention from another venerable greybeard. Something of a theme seems to be emerging. Yes, it is true that those Members were missing in action, but I am afraid that the figures on which we always work relate to those who actually go through the Division Lobbies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I will not speak for long and I apologise for not being here at the very beginning of the debate. I was a member of the Crossrail Committee for two years and, contrary to what some have speculated, the Whips put me and some of my colleagues on it as a punishment. We had voted against some civil liberties legislation and one of my colleagues, who is no longer in the House, remonstrated with our Whips and was told, “You’re staying on—get on with it.” It was definitely seen as a punishment. However, the Whips did not appreciate that I am a railway enthusiast. I know a lot about railways. I do not want to seem immodest, but I also know a lot about the engineering of railways, and I receive advice from a series of friends, colleagues and acquaintances who are skilled in engineering and running railways. I therefore had something to offer that Select Committee and I enjoyed my two years on it. It was quite onerous—two solid days a week and so on—but it was a nice experience, and I like to think that I made some positive contributions.

That brings me to the important point about skills. It is important for Committee members to have engineering advice at their disposal so that they know what they are talking about and what other people are talking about. Barristers will appear before the Committee, and other people will give evidence, but it is important to develop the expertise of Committee members. They are fine Members, but as there are six of them, they will have a hard job for quite a long time. If they are not interested in railways and do not receive skilled advice, they will find it even harder. I hope that that point will be taken care of.

I think that the House has become more democratic in the way in which it appoints people to Select Committees. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) talked about the modernisation of the House and the Wright Committee. I served on the Select Committee on Public Administration under the chairmanship of Tony Wright for several years. I still serve on that Committee—it is an interesting Committee, now chaired by the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), and I really enjoy that work. We are constantly looking at the way in which government operates and the way in which the House interrelates with government, and we try to raise the status and effect of the House in holding the Government to account. That is what we are about.

Previous Governments, both Tory and Labour, have not paid sufficient heed to the House of Commons, and have adopted a rather high-handed manner. I was kept off Select Committees for a long time, perhaps because I was regarded as a radical person of the left. For five years, I tried to serve on every Select Committee, but the Whips would not hear of it. Now, the process is much more open, and anyone with any particular view in the House can become a member of a Select Committee, provided that there is a vacancy. That is a great advance. Two Members made that advance: Tony Wright and, before him, Robin Cook, who should be praised for his work in trying to improve Parliament’s control over the Executive. I want that process to continue and become more significant.

A number of points have been made about the project by hon. Members, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson). My view is that the Euston terminus is complete nonsense. It would be horrendously expensive, and it is in the wrong place. If the railway stopped at Paddington or even Old Oak Common, and linked directly to Crossrail, people would use Crossrail to go straight through to the City and Canary Wharf. There is a lot of talk about business links between the centre of Birmingham, our second city, and the City of London, and being able to make an easy trip from Birmingham to the City, particularly Canary Wharf, is a sensible way forward. Going to Euston would be expensive, and it would require at least two tube journeys to get to Canary Wharf. All the time that might be saved by a slightly faster train to Euston would be lost, given the time taken for those journeys from Euston to Canary Wharf.

The Euston terminus is nonsense, and it is my belief—and people have said this to me—that it is really about property development and making money out of such a development at Euston. It is not really about transport needs. I have criticisms and reservations about the whole project, as my vote indicated last night. Unfortunately, I was unable to speak in the debate yesterday; otherwise I would have made some serious points. If Old Oak Common or Paddington were the terminus, that would save billions and would immediately—

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

What about Stratford?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Well, Stratford possibly. That would save money and would put people straight on to Crossrail. I supported Crossrail, which was a difficult, expensive project, but we improved it as a result of careful analysis by the Crossrail Bill Committee. We drove certain projects. For example, we proposed that there should be a station at Woolwich, and we managed to get that into the Crossrail Bill. There will be a Crossrail station at Woolwich, which is a valuable improvement.

There are environmental problems. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North chairs the Environmental Audit Committee. It is important to know how we will overcome such problems. One problem with Crossrail was that it went under Soho, where there are a lot of significant and economically important recording studios, which are sensitive to vibration and noise. I know from friends and advisers that one can do various things to tackle such problems, including the use of floating slab track. Not every Member will know what that is, but it is a way of insulating the track from the concrete channel on which it runs, thus avoiding vibration. Builders do not want to know about that, because it costs more money, although not very much more. If that option had not been proposed, such a measure would not have been included. It is therefore important that expert advice to Committee members is provided by engineering specialists who know what they are talking about.

I have friends who criticise the route of HS2. It seems that, in the first instance, the route was created by non-engineers drawing lines on maps. As a small child, my son used to take Ordnance Survey maps, and used a felt-tip pen to draw railway lines across them. It ruined the maps, but the method used to determine the route of HS2 was not far from that. Even now, there are serious criticisms about the precise route, even from those who go along with HS2.

[Mrs Gillan]

The hon. Gentleman is making some valid points. I am sorry that he did not manage to speak at great length yesterday.

It is important that there is flexibility in the way in which the project is considered, because the route was just a straight line drawn on a map for speed purposes. Many reasons for sticking to the original route design have now gone. What gives me heart is the fact that the Government have made much of the £14.4 billion contingency fund. We must ensure that if that fund is available, it is used to get the best possible mitigation, whether environmental or urban, as in the case of the recording studios in Soho. There is capacity in the budget to afford those protections and include them, and it is important that we secure them.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I agree, and I very much appreciate what the right hon. Lady said in her speech.

There are measures to deal with environmental damage. I mentioned floating slab track to deal with vibration, but there are also noise barriers disguised by foliage and tunnelling where necessary. All sorts of things can be done: they cost a bit extra, but they make the project much more acceptable. Getting the line right in the first instance is absolutely fundamental, and many of my good friends tell me that the line is not right, especially north of Birmingham, but also between London and Birmingham. All sorts of details need to be argued, which will take the Committee a long time. HS2 is a much bigger project than Crossrail, and the Crossrail Bill Committee took two years. We met every week, and there were lots and lots of petitions. There will be many more for HS2, so we are looking at a big job.

The right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) mentioned speed, and recently there was talk about reducing the maximum speed from 250 mph to 183 mph—or 300 kph—and going at the speed of HS1. It was an arbitrary decision—“Oh well, let’s just reduce the speed”—which changes a lot of suggested journey times. I have spoken in the House about journey times, and criticised the project in that regard, as it seems that someone can just make a quick decision—“Oh well, we won’t go there. We’ll decide to change the speed.” There is a problem with high-speed trains, which cannot go round tight curves as they would fall off the track. Curves have to be gradual and of a large radius, which causes all sorts of problems. That does not apply to trains on standard rail, with a speed of up to 125 mph or 135 mph.

Raising the speed from 300 kph to 250 mph demands a tremendous increase in energy. Energy costs are much greater at higher speed, and extra emissions from power stations required to drive electric trains are disproportionately increased. Optimum railway speeds are much lower—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Quite a few more Members want to speak and I do not want to allow the hon. Gentleman’s speech to turn into a Second Reading speech. I would have thought that the motions are more important at this stage.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I shall conclude in a moment as I have basically made my points.

I would be happy to support all the amendments of the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham were they ever put to a vote, but I hope that the Government will take them into account. I am also in favour of the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North, who is not her place, and all the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras. I hope that we see some common sense in the long run.