Road Infrastructure

Debate between Lilian Greenwood and Cheryl Gillan

Wednesday 5th July 2017 Westminster Hall

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

Prioritisation is very important, but, moving away from Highways England, does the hon. Lady agree that local authorities find it difficult to allocate funds to produce feasibility studies and business cases to move projects forward? There has been a problem in my constituency with moving forward the York outer northern ring road, which is regularly congested—many constituents call it a car park. Does the hon. Lady agree that if the bypass fund is properly targeted, it might allow local authorities to move some of those long-term projects forward?

[Mrs Cheryl Gillan (in the Chair)]

Order. May I remind Members that interventions should be short?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I will come on to the role of local authorities, but there needs to be certainty about costs and affordability.

To return to the national network, there was a clear case for ending spending on removing the hard shoulder from more than 500 motorway lane miles. Those proposals were taken forward despite an inadequate evidence base, safety fears, concerns from the emergency services, and drivers’ unwillingness to use the former hard shoulder lane, as evidenced by Atkins’ recent review, which the Department commissioned.

It was reported last week that the Transport Secretary has ordered changes to the roll-out of the scheme, including the fitting of more refuge areas. Will the Minister confirm that those reports are accurate? If so, will there be a formal statement to the House? What is the expected cost of those changes? The Transport Committee raised that issue and suggested that

“the proposed schemes be replaced by schemes based on the M42 Active Traffic Management design.”

It may be slow, but we know it will be safer.

The priority for many drivers is the fixing of damaged local roads, not the strategic network. Potholes do not just impair the quality of driving, extend journey times and damage vehicles; they are a real safety risk for drivers and cyclists. Everyone is a road user, so tackling the poor condition of our local roads should be a national priority.

HS2 Funding Referendum Bill

Debate between Lilian Greenwood and Cheryl Gillan

Friday 23rd January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

Although I count myself as a supporter of HS2, I congratulate the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) on securing a Second Reading for his Bill. I know that he has a long-standing interest in these issues as a former shadow transport spokesman, and it is always important to debate how public money—taxpayers’ money, if you will—is spent and to subject major public projects to close scrutiny.

The hon. Gentleman has said outside this place and has contended today that the House has not had an opportunity to scrutinise HS2’s funding and the costs and benefits of the project, but speaking as a veteran of the Public Bill Committee that considered the High Speed Rail (Preparation) Act 2013 and as a Front-Bencher during the introduction of the phase 1 hybrid Bill, I am not sure I can follow him that far. The truth is that the House has already imposed tighter spending controls on HS2. I submitted an amendment to the preparation Act that was accepted by the House and introduced a duty on the Government to declare any overspend, against both the annual and the total budget. The noble Lady Baroness Kramer conceded in the other place that that was

“a very vigorous reporting process under which the Government must report back annually and record any deviation from budget…which has put in place a very intense scrutiny process around the budget.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 November 2013; Vol. 749, c. 949.]

Of course, there can be no room for complacency. Delays after the election and substantial cost increases have not been to the Government's credit, and I would agree that the Government, perhaps distracted by their rail franchising fiasco, failed to communicate properly the reasons why the project is necessary. Of course, the overall figure, the £50.1 billion, includes a sizeable contingency buffer—as well as funds for new trains, some of which will run on existing lines—but that is not money that we want to see spent. We need to have a laser-like focus on bringing down the project’s costs. There cannot be a blank cheque for this or any other project.

Nevertheless, I do not see the case for such a dramatic course of action as that proposed in the Bill. We did not have a referendum on Crossrail, which is due to cost £16 billion, nor did we have a referendum on HS1, which cost £6 billion. I am happy to be corrected, but I am not aware that the hon. Member for Christchurch called for such a referendum at the time. On a day when an important Transport Committee report called for

“a fairer allocation of rail investment across the country”,

it would seem very strange to set such a precedent for a railway that will primarily benefit the midlands and the north. Moreover, a referendum would itself cost £85 million, given that that was the cost of the AV referendum.

Finally, and importantly, the phase 1 Bill Committee is now deep in its work. Three days a week, in Committee Room 5, mitigation is being agreed and the project is being improved. I cannot accept that further and prolonged uncertainty would benefit people on the route. Labour Members—albeit with one or two right honourable exceptions—believe that, provided costs are kept under control, HS2 will bring enormous benefits to the country.

[Mrs Gillan]

As was expected, the hon. Lady is in favour of HS2 and against the Bill, but would she care to tell us at what cost point her party would decide to abandon the project? She said that we must keep costs under tight control, but given that she must now know what the limits are, will she share them with the House? I think that that information is important.

[Lilian Greenwood]

The right hon. Lady has, of course, been a strong advocate on behalf of her constituents, and I know of her long-standing opposition to the hybrid Bill. Labour’s position is clear: we support HS2. It was a Labour proposal, and we want that Bill to be passed. However, I can do no better than quote what was said by the hon. Member for Christchurch, who, when he was an Opposition Front Bencher 10 years ago, said in the context of Crossrail

“no serious prospective Government—such as we are—would be prepared to write a blank cheque for any project, however desirable people might think it is.”—[Official Report, 7 April 2005; Vol. 432, c. 1607.]

A budget has been set out for this project, which includes a significant contingency element. We must maintain our focus on ensuring that the project is delivered within that budget, and, I have said, it would be preferable for the contingency money not to be spent.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I have already said that the necessity for Crossrail 2 and whether it would attract a favourable cost-benefit analysis should be investigated. Crossrail needs to be considered on its merits, as do all other investments in transport infrastructure. A case must be made on the basis of the benefits that it can deliver and whether it represents a good use of taxpayers’ money.

[Mrs Gillan]

The hon. Lady said that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) had not called for a referendum on Crossrail 1. I understand that Crossrail 1 is funded partly through the rates and partly by businesses in London, and not entirely by the Treasury and the taxpayer’s purse.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I agree. Nearly all rail projects’ capital costs are publicly funded, although there are sometimes opportunities for private investment. I have no doubt that there will be opportunities to attract such investment in, for example, over-site development of stations in connection with HS2. However, when we need investment in our infrastructure, we must be prepared to commit public money. As I have said, I do not think that we should set a precedent in this regard.

HS2 will unblock the congested arteries of our ageing rail network, will provide vital additional capacity, and will transform the connections between the great cities of the midlands and the north. Our message to both the Government and HS2 Ltd is clear: take the phase 1 Bill to Third Reading, present the proposals for phase 2, and get this important project back on track.

High Speed Rail (Preparation) Bill

Debate between Lilian Greenwood and Cheryl Gillan

Thursday 31st October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Lilian Greenwood]

I am not sure why the hon. Gentleman did not address that to the Minister who is responsible for the railway. I feel like I have been given entire responsibility for it, although I would be happy if we swapped places. The point is that the capacity is not available at the times when people want to travel—at peak times—and that there is insufficient capacity for additional services and for freight, which is also vital.

[Mrs Gillan]

Some people who study this subject and take issue with the Government’s claims about capacity on the west coast main line say that much of that capacity could be improved by allowing Virgin Trains passengers in peak hours to get off at Milton Keynes—that currently does not happen. What is the hon. Lady’s opinion of that? What studies has she made of how that could relieve capacity problems in the future?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I am sure that many people who want to go to the north would not, for a minute, wish to get off at Milton Keynes. The fact is that there simply is not enough capacity. I am sure that people who live in Milton Keynes are looking forward to the extra capacity created by HS2 and the possibility of additional services, particularly for commuters, that that will free up on the west coast main line.

Let me now deal with the amendments relating to the links to Scotland. Labour has always supported the principle of bringing high-speed rail to Scotland, which is why the previous Labour Government set up HS2 Ltd to examine possible routes to Scotland. HS2 will bring real benefits, enabling faster journey times and adding to capacity on the main line routes to Scotland. We wanted to put those benefits in the Bill in Committee, but we were told by Transport Scotland that the Scottish Government opposed altering the Bill. It was therefore somewhat curious to see the Scottish National party tabling such amendments.

One purpose of the Bill is to provide a legal basis for future extensions of the high-speed network, providing that the economic case can be made for them. With the Government failing to keep the costs under control, we need to focus today on the HS2 network as planned. I would be interested to hear what work the Government are doing on the costs and benefits of extending the line. We have seen reports in the media that the Government are going to launch a feasibility study into extending the line to Scotland. I do not know whether the Minister would like to take this opportunity to intervene to confirm that and explain the timetable for the study.

High Speed 2 (Ancient Woodlands)

Debate between Lilian Greenwood and Cheryl Gillan

Wednesday 3rd July 2013 Westminster Hall

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He is right to point out that we considered alternative routes and argued that they should be considered by the new Government. We want the project to proceed, but there are significant concerns about the Government’s timetable, particularly the hybrid Bill. The Government are in a position to make decisions and we want the project to proceed, but that does not mean that we should not look carefully at the option for mitigation and compensation to protect the natural habitat.

Will the Minister tell us whether he is satisfied with the way in which alterations to the proposed route have been made so far, whether he expects further changes, including additional tunnelling, to avoid ancient woodland, and whether he has given any thought to how ancient woodland in particular will be approached during the hybrid Bill’s petitioning process? When the Bill goes into Committee, the Government will be able to set limits of deviation restricting the extent to which alterations may be made during that process. We ask for careful thought to be given to how ancient woodland might be affected by those limits. The commitment to planting new trees is welcome, provided they form a sensitive and effective sound barrier, but they cannot replace ancient woodland which is, by definition, irreplaceable.

I am pleased that the hon. Member for Lichfield agrees that a north-south rail line is right in principle. As the House debated last week, there is an impending capacity crunch for our railways, especially on the west coast main line which will be full by 2024.

[Mrs Gillan]

The hon. Lady says that the west coast main line will be full by a certain date. Can she give me her source of information and the evidence base on which her statement is based?

[Lilian Greenwood]

My information is based on the evidence provided by Network Rail and others showing the continuing huge growth not just on the west coast main line, but on all rail lines. There is great demand from passengers and freight and we must be able to meet that from an environmental perspective because of the importance of rail for our future economic growth and regeneration.

A new north-south rail line is necessary to keep pace with rising passenger and freight demand. This project can bring additional private investment along the route, generating jobs and growth while improving connections between our cities, particularly in the midlands and the north. The hon. Member for Lichfield was absolutely right to call for this debate on ancient woodland, which is a particular concern for his constituents. This discussion comes at a crucial point as the designs for phase 1 are finalised. I hope that the Minister will explain exactly how he intends to act on the back of the points raised today, and provide full answers to the questions that other hon. Members and I have posed.

There is no doubt that there is a difficult balance to be struck. High-speed rail can help to deliver carbon reduction, which is why the Woodland Trust, the Campaign to Protect Rural England and Greenpeace support it in principle. Inaction is not an option, as road schemes and degraded air quality also threaten woodland. The line can bring real environmental benefits, but only if other policy decisions are taken, including in particular a commitment to decarbonise electricity. That wider context is crucial, especially as Parliament is being asked to confer extra spending and planning powers in aid of the scheme.

As hon. Members have pointed out, there is an apparent contradiction between the Government’s national planning framework, which contains a provision against development on ancient woodland sites, and the proposed route, which goes through several such areas. This is exactly the sort of issue that could be addressed in the long-awaited national transport strategy, but three years in, the Government still do not have one. Perhaps the Minister will tell us when he expects the document to be published; it would be of great assistance to MPs and the public as the debate continues.

To conclude, we have lost half our ancient woodland since the 1930s, mainly as a result of agricultural development. The hard truth is that although the new north-south rail line will bring a great number of benefits, it is likely to result in further loss. That is a matter of regret, and both the Government and HS2 Ltd must present an absolutely watertight case when they propose the disruption or destruction of ancient woodland sites. I promise hon. Members and the wider public that Labour will return to the issue during the Bill’s Committee stage.