High Speed Rail (Preparation) Bill

Debate between Louise Ellman and Dan Byles

Thursday 31st October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Ellman]

Indeed; the hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. We must not look simply at the HS2 line itself; we must also consider how its connectivity to other lines and other parts of the transport network can be developed.

[Dan Byles]

If the principal benefit is now capacity rather than speed—this seems very much how the argument has moved—why not slow it down? If it is slowed down, we will no longer have the engineers I sit down with every week telling me, “We can’t go around Water Orton primary school because speed means it must be a straight line; we can’t go around ancient bluebell woods because speed means it must be a straight line.” If we slow it down, we will be able to avoid going over many of the sensitive areas on the route and perhaps even put in more stations.

[Mrs Ellman]

The strategic review and other studies indicate that alternatives have been looked at and rejected. Network Rail states that more than 100 cities and towns could benefit from this development. Named in the various reports are places including Watford, Milton Keynes, Rugby and Northampton, but many more are possible. There is also a need to increase capacity for freight, which is as important as passengers. About 20 new freight paths can be developed, but I would view that as the absolute minimum.

Transport Committee Report (High Speed Rail)

Debate between Louise Ellman and Dan Byles

Tuesday 8th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Ellman]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I hope that he will put his weight behind the views of the Select Committee, which is already working hard to ensure that the northern hub is delivered.

The Committee considered that further information was required to inform decisions on access to Heathrow and terminals in London. We felt that there was not enough information in the public sphere, particularly in relation to Heathrow. We also felt, strongly, that environmental concerns should be properly assessed in a revised business case. High-speed rail is likely to have substantial impacts on some local communities and areas along the route, and we need to be satisfied that full consideration has been given to an assessment of what those impacts might be.

[Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

I join those who have welcomed the report, which contains a very thorough analysis. The Committee has entered a number of caveats alongside its support for High Speed 2. In the summary, the Committee calls on the Government

“to consider and clarify these matters before it reaches its decision”.

Does the Committee believe that the Government should not make a decision until all the points raised in the report have been clarified?

[Mrs Ellman]

If the Government decide to proceed, they should issue a statement of their intention to do so. We have already been told that more information will be made available before a statement is issued. Following that, intensive work should be done to deal with some of the issues that we have raised before the House considers a hybrid Bill in 2013. It is proposed that proceedings on the Bill should take place over 18 months, so if the Government decide to go ahead there will be plenty of time for consideration to be given and for more information to be produced before any final decision is made.