High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill

Stephen O'Brien Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Stephen O’Brien (Eddisbury) (Con)]

When the House last considered this matter, I abstained because there were too many unanswered questions about the proposals. There still are. The proposed route of HS2 in phase 2 beyond Crewe will come into the Eddisbury constituency, passing through the residential settlements of Stanthorne, Bostock and Whatcroft, and through many successful farms before turning sharply eastwards towards Manchester airport and Manchester itself, where the so-called high-speed trains will have to slow down, possibly to less than 100 mph. I have received extensive representations from many of the 140 constituents directly and adversely affected by these proposals, including those whose homes will be demolished and those who live close to the proposed route. The consultation on this section closed at the end of January and we have yet to hear the outcome of that process, which might involve a change of route. I hope it will, on engineering, build cost, train speed, performance and cost-efficiency grounds.

The evidence to support the claims for HS2 is in very thin supply, so we are forced to assess and represent constituents’ interests, set against something of a national punt. In Eddisbury, a significant number of people want HS2 stopped; some are broadly in favour, although not on the higher-speed grounds, as the saving in journey time from Crewe to London will be deeply underwhelming, and most people are able to work on the train; and others want assurances and indemnities from the Government, which the Government have not yet chosen to give, on engineering integrity, cost, environmental protections of habitat, ancient forestry, wildlife, watercourses, noise, safety and, not least, full as well as fair compensation. We already know that part of the compensation problem is that the definition of “severe hardship” is too narrow to reflect the reality of the plight of some of my constituents, who are already suffering. That applies not least in the case of an elderly couple who wish to move out to join their children but have found that they are unable to sell at anything near a fair price. Their dreams have been thrown into jeopardy and they are now stuck.

A key argument that remains unexamined about the proposals for Eddisbury is fundamentally one of engineering. The geography and geology of the land north of Crewe comprise the extraordinarily fertile and verdant Cheshire plain, much of which is salt marsh and its geological legacy. Our salt marshes are notoriously unstable and difficult to build over or through. On behalf of the constituents who have taken the lead in coming to see me about their HS2 concerns, I have been trying in recent weeks to secure a meeting with the chief engineers from the Department and HS2 Ltd, in order to make a presentation with my constituents, who have examined, in expert engineering terms, the evidence to back up their concerns. Until now, requests for such a meeting have been rebuffed, but over the weekend I received a guarantee from the Secretary of State that my constituents and I will now get a full and proper opportunity to meet the most senior engineers and thus to present our evidence. Do not get me wrong, it is not that salt marshes cannot be built over; they just cannot be built over at anything like the cost and risk currently envisaged. They are inherently unstable, so the price will be enormous and will threaten the maximum £45 billion figure. That is why it will be appropriate for me to abstain tonight in order to allow that process of engagement to be genuine, rather than to pre-judge the outcome. I very much hope the Government will listen with an open mind, rather than simply seek to persuade us of their preconceived notions.

Let me make it absolutely clear that I support the aspiration that Crewe—it is just outside my constituency but affects my constituents—should be an inter-modal transport hub, as part of our local aspirational strategic growth plan. Even the proponents of that do not make it conditional or dependent on HS2 coming through Crewe. We should support it in any event, although if HS2 were to come to Crewe it would help it.

My final point is simply that no serious assessment has been made by the Government, despite the many representations I have sought to make, in respect of increasing capacity on the west coast main line and making the comparison with other countries’ solutions to these problems. Of course, the double-decking of carriages is one such solution, but it is completely pooh-poohed by the Government because they do not want to hear that a technological solution is available. This is not about raising the bridges, as we had to do for the catenaries for electrification in the 1970s. The concrete technology—I know a little about it—is so sophisticated that lowering the line to create the space to have double-decker carriages which would be able to go along the current west coast main line, suitably maintained, will increase the capacity and deliver the results at a fraction of the cost of HS2. I very much hope that by engaging in a technical and engineering sense, the Government will have an open mind on the alternatives, so that we can assess whether HS2 truly provides value for money for the taxpayer. I say that because spending £50 billion on a new railway line is a very big risk to take when there may be genuine alternatives and when we are trying to increase our national competitiveness by providing a secure system of transport for the whole country.