Asked by
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to
avoid significant settlements, and consequent speed restrictions,
on the route of the HS2 rail line in the area above the Cheshire
salt mines north of Crewe.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Transport () (Con)
My Lords, HS2 Ltd has undertaken ground investigations to
increase the understanding of geological risks associated with
settlement. This work supplements examination of information from
the British Geological Survey, historic boreholes, salt
extraction operators and action groups. This information has
informed the current design.
(Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that helpful Answer. She
will be aware that underneath the area where the line goes north
of Crewe, there are caverns that are 200 metres high, and only
25% of the salt is remaining and the rest has been extracted. It
has been settling for 100 years and probably will continue to
settle for that length of time. What is HS2 going to do to ensure
that the line remains straight and level, which is necessary for
high-speed rail work?
(Con)
Of course, HS2 is well aware of what has happened underneath the
Cheshire Basin, and I noted in my previous Answer that
groundworks have been undertaken. I am pleased to reassure the
noble Lord that that is not the end of it. Plenty more work still
needs to be done. A full programme of ground investigations
across the entire route will happen between 2023 and late 2025.
HS2 is confident that the line can be built on this route at an
appropriate cost.
(Con)
My Lords, what has this ridiculous project cost to date? Is its
construction continuing on time and on budget? Have they yet
found a way of getting in and out of Euston station?
(Con)
A further update on the HS2 project will be laid before your
Lordships’ House in October.
Lord McLoughlin (Con)
My Lords, I draw the House’s attention to my interest as chairman
of Transport for the North. Is it not the case that the Bill will
have detailed consideration in Committee, which it is about to
enter in the other place? This is the biggest increase in rail
capacity in our country’s recent history, and the simple fact is
that it will do more to increase capacity on our rail network
than any other project currently being looked at by the
Government.
(Con)
My noble friend is absolutely right. The Bill for this leg of the
HS2 project had its Second Reading in the other place on 20 June.
As noble Lords may recall from the phase 2a Bill, which was
before your Lordships’ House recently, it now goes into a very
detailed process of petitioning, which is really important as it
allows local people to raise detailed concerns about the project.
Obviously, it is key that we keep as many stakeholders as content
as possible.
The Lord Speaker ()
The noble Lord, , will make a virtual
contribution.
of Cheltenham (LD) [V]
My Lords, I know from serving on an HS2 Select Committee how
vital it is for the track to meet the highest standard,
particularly in challenging areas like the Cheshire salt mines,
to prevent perturbation of the timetable. With today’s
announcement of railway speed limits because of concerns about
the effect of hot weather on current tracks, is the Minister
satisfied that the high-quality steel being used for HS2 will
cope with the likelihood that climate change will lead to more
regular and more extreme hot spells?
(Con)
Of course, these are all considerations when we consider how the
railway is to be designed and subsequently constructed. It is the
case that where changes are necessary, HS2 is willing to look at
them. For example, the 2016 route refinement consultation shifted
the route slightly to take into account the salt mines in the
Cheshire Basin. When issues come before us, we are able to make
appropriate changes.
(Lab Co-op)
My Lords, the way things are going down the other end, these salt
mines might prove useful. On the substance of question, the noble
Lord, Lord McLoughlin, is right: this is a project to increase
capacity; it is not just about speed. All the Government’s
stop-go on this project has bedevilled it. It is about time they
rushed ahead with it, got back to its original concept and had it
going all the way up to Scotland.
(Con)
It is the case that we have to get this project right. It has to
be delivered within a reasonable cost, and it must actually be
deliverable. As I have said previously, the Government are always
willing to look at better solutions for Scotland. For example,
the union connectivity review concluded that the Golborne link
would not resolve all the capacity constraints on the west coast
main line, Crewe to Preston, and would therefore not provide the
benefits to Scotland. We are taking that away, and we are working
on more options such that we can keep Scotland really well
connected.
(Non-Afl)
My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Cumbria Local
Enterprise Partnership. The Minister mentioned the Golborne link
and threw doubt on its effectiveness. However, is it not the case
that if we are to improve links to the north-west and beyond to
Scotland, the Golborne link provides a very substantial
improvement? As such, it is not going to assist levelling up in
those areas if it is not part of the overall final scheme.
(Con)
Sir Peter Hendy in his union connectivity review slightly begged
to differ, and suggested that there are alternatives that would
make for better journeys to Scotland. Nothing is off the table;
that may mean new high-speed lines or improvements to existing
infrastructure. Of course, any of the options brought forward
would have to compare favourably with the Golborne link as
originally planned.
(Lab)
My Lords, the spiralling cost of the Great Western
electrification programme is a perfect case study of the
importance of transparency between government and industry to
ensure industry’s preparedness to deliver complex infrastructure
projects. Yet that link, the rail network enhancements pipeline,
remains unpublished. Given that, how can we expect HS2 to be
delivered on time and on budget when maintaining transparency
with the rail industry is not a priority for this Government?
(Con)
The noble Lord has managed to combine many elements into one
thing. I can reassure him that the RNEP document will be
published shortly, which will reassure him about the Government’s
commitment to investing in our railways.
(LD)
My Lords, in November, the Government decided to terminate the
eastern leg of HS2 in the Midlands rather than at Leeds, as
originally promised. When they were criticised for abandoning
their policy on the grounds that it would affect levelling up,
the Government promised £100 million to look at alternative ways
to run HS2 trains to Leeds. However, eight months on, absolutely
nothing has happened in terms of even scoping this study. Is this
yet another broken promise from this Government to the people of
northern England?
(Con)
Not at all. Work is of course well under way within the
department as to how best to use the £100 million that we have
set out to look at the options on the route to Leeds and to
finally make some progress on a mass transit system for Leeds.
However, one of the key things about the Government’s decision
for our plans for high-speed rail in the future is to make sure
that we get as close to city centres as possible. In the older
plans, it was far too often the case that the train never got
anywhere close to the city centre but now places such as Derby
and Nottingham will benefit.
(Con)
My Lords, the report of the Economic Affairs Committee of this
House on HS2 predicted that the net result would be that it would
run over budget and we would lose the necessary expenditure for
east-west improvement of rail services in the north, which has
come to pass. Given that the business case was based on the
premise that there would be a need for more business travel and
given that, as the Civil Service has shown, many people are now
working from home, should the business case now be reviewed?
(Con)
I reassure my noble friend that if there are changes to the
budget or to the schedule, that will be put before Parliament in
the six-monthly review. I slightly take issue about there being a
lack of east-west investment from the Government. The £96 billion
that we are investing in the integrated rail plan is a
significant amount for east-west connectivity.
(Lab)
My Lords, is the Minister as weary as I must admit I feel from
time to time of endless questions about the difficulties and
problems associated with building a railway? Some 180 years ago,
the Victorians managed to put bridges over estuaries, tunnels
through hills and build railways over marshland, and heaven knows
whatever else, and we seem to be incapable of proceeding because
we are worried about salt mines in Crewe.
(Con)
I cannot recall 180 years ago, but it sounds idyllic. It is
absolutely right that the Government should receive the correct
amount of scrutiny, this is an enormous amount of taxpayers’
money, and we want the line built as soon as possible.
