High Speed Rail (West Midlands - Crewe) Bill (Second sitting)

Paul Sweeney Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 25th June 2019 Public Bill Committees

[Ms Ghani]

I return to highlighting how important this line is and the fact that it has to adhere to a single budget. Of course, without HS2 there would not be Northern Powerhouse Rail, because it requires the infrastructure for HS2.

Before I address some of the issues raised about climate change, I remind the hon. Member for Reading East that travelling by rail is the most efficient way to travel. It is a good form of transport because it means that passengers do not fill up lots of cars on the motorway or take flight. The hon. Gentleman threw down the gauntlet on a number of issues relating to carbon impacts; he gave me the right to reply in writing, but I may have the answers in front of me, so I will do my best to respond.

Compared with most other transport modes, high-speed rail offers some of the lowest carbon emissions per passenger kilometre, significantly less than cars and planes. As an annual average, the scheme’s carbon footprint over the course of the construction period will represent less than 1% of the UK’s annual construction carbon footprint. The scheme is expected to save 419,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions through modal shift in transport—that was a very good term that the hon. Gentleman used—with approximately 364,000 tonnes saved as a result of road, rail and domestic air passengers switching to high-speed rail, and 55,000 tonnes saved as a result of road freight moving on to existing rail lines due to released capacity from the scheme. Over the 120-year design life of the scheme, the net carbon emission reduction from modal shift is estimated at minus 307,000 tonnes.

[Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister makes an important point about the benefits of modal shift. It is important that we have a national aspiration to integrate all the United Kingdom’s core cities with high-speed rail networks, and this is a significant step in that direction. However, on a good day, flying from Glasgow to London takes me three hours from door to door. It is clear that even with these improvements, the journey from Glasgow to London by rail will still take three hours and 40 minutes. It needs to be below three hours. What will the Minister do to advance that national objective?

[Ms Ghani]

There will be a reduced journey time on high-speed rail, which will open up capacity on existing railway lines. It will also shift people from roads or flights to rail, which is incredibly important. We will continue to invest north of London. This is just one way of ensuring that the journey becomes far more integrated, but I know that the hon. Gentleman would like it to become even faster. Considering that it has taken us so long to get high-speed rail up and running, who knows what will come in the next iteration? However, I do take his point.

Let me return to the important point about skills that the hon. Member for Reading East raised. At present, there are 9,000 people working on high-speed rail, with more than 2,000 businesses already involved in the chain. The hon. Gentleman raised an important point about how we will reach the 30,000 people who will be required to build the railway; that is why we have two colleges set up to improve the technical and academic skills of people working on the railway line, from design to construction.

Having made all those arguments, I really do not understand the need for new clause 6. The issue of quarterly reporting has been raised, but HS2 Ltd already provides annual reports to Parliament, as required by the DFT-HS2 Ltd framework document. I believe that that level of reporting is proportionate and sufficient. The project is bound not to exceed the likely significant environmental effects assessed for the scheme, as reported to Parliament. As part of HS2 Ltd’s sustainability policy, an environmental management system will be developed that will set out the procedure to plan and monitor compliance with environmental legislation; the record-keeping arrangements, including reports to my Department; and the procedures that will be put in place to monitor compliance with the Bill’s environmental provisions.

There is so much scrutiny and accountability that separate quarterly reporting would be excessive and burdensome to the Department. There are already reports out there; if the 11,000-page report were read fully, I believe it would answer a number of the questions that have been raised so far. I do not believe that there is any need for the new clause. It should be withdrawn.