(LD): My
Lords, I rise to make a short point following the comments made
by the noble Lord, . I recently went to the
railway museum in Swindon, where I read all about the predictions
of disaster for Brunel’s Great Western Railway and the huge
opposition to it. In fact, the towns that accepted a station in
their centre prospered; those that rejected a station did not
prosper as much. We nowadays look on railways as an
environmentally friendly way of travelling. I simply want to
point out that I do not believe that amendments that question
particular aspects of the Bill undermine the Bill; in our case,
they are designed to strengthen it. Wanting to monitor the
spending of money is a sign that we want the project to succeed.
I want to make it absolutely clear that putting down an
apparently critical amendment does not mean any lack of support
for the concept of the project as a whole. We want it to succeed.
(Lab): I hope the
noble Baroness will accept from me that I am not making that
accusation. I am saying that I do not quite understand the
agreement between my noble friend and her noble friend on this group of
amendments, but I am sure that they will explain it. I appreciate
that there are genuine and legitimate concerns inherent in their
amendments. My objection is to speeches that are meant to
sabotage the whole project. We have had these debates on umpteen
occasions. My noble friend mentioned the Economic Affairs
Committee report, which was torn apart on the Floor of the House.
I am not saying that my contribution made any difference, but the
approach that was taken was enough for me. If we are going to
judge every project on so-called value for money, no project
would ever meet the criteria laid down by those who were against
that project in the first place. Whatever you did, they would
say, “This is not value for money”. As the noble Baroness, Lady
Randerson, said, some of the objectors to Brunel’s railway were
thought quite credible. They gave evidence to a House of Commons
Committee saying that trains passing through Box Tunnel on the
Great Western main line at faster than 60 miles an hour would
asphyxiate those on board. They were not particularly credible
then, although they were listened to, and some of the objections
that we have heard to this project are not particularly credible
now...
(Lab): ...Noble
Lords may be aware that when the east coast main line was
electrified—before my day, but perhaps the noble Lord, , was around then—it was
done on the cheap and the wires do come down with depressing
regularity. Network Rail, in electrifying
the Great Western, have therefore gone to
the opposite extreme and put up some pretty hefty towers,
supported on piles in the ground, and the wires will be so strong
that they will probably resist a good hurricane. But then the
people of Bath said that they did not want wires on the railway
going past the beautiful city of Bath. When Bath was built, there
was not a railway, was there? But a railway was put through it so
that the good people of Bath could get to Bristol and London and
other places. They did not want a catenary at all; they wanted a
third rail because you would not see it. It would have cost
billions to develop a special train to go just there so you would
not see the wires. The later idea was that the people of Goring,
somewhere between Didcot and Reading, did not like the look of
these posts and so they are taking legal action, I believe,
against Network Rail to have the posts redesigned.
To read the whole debate, CLICK
HERE
