Statement The following Statement was made in the House of Commons
on Monday 16 October. “With permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish
to make a Statement on how this Government are improving the
journeys that matter most to the British public. Our path to net
zero remains ambitious, but we are making that path more
proportionate. We are backing Britain’s drivers and slamming the
brakes on anti-car policies. Thanks to record government
investment, everyday...Request free
trial
Statement
The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on
Monday 16 October.
“With permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a Statement
on how this Government are improving the journeys that matter
most to the British public.
Our path to net zero remains ambitious, but we are making that
path more proportionate. We are backing Britain’s drivers and
slamming the brakes on anti-car policies. Thanks to record
government investment, everyday journeys for more people in more
places will improve more quickly.
I wish to update the House on three long-term decisions we have
made to secure a brighter future, starting with zero-emission
vehicles. No one should doubt or play down Britain’s progress on
decarbonisation. ‘World leading’ is not an exaggeration. We have
cut emissions faster than any G7 country, pledged a decarbonised
transport sector by 2050—the first major economy to do so—and
today we have laid another world-leading piece of legislation:
the zero-emission vehicle mandate. Manufacturers will now meet
minimum targets of clean car production, starting with 22% next
year and reaching 80% by 2030. It stands to be one of the largest
carbon-saving policies across government, and manufacturers are
on board. They will deliver a mandate that they helped shape, a
product of partnership between this Government and industry that
has been not months but years in the making. These targets are
now embedded in their forecasts, and that certainty has inspired
investment, protected existing jobs and paved the way for new
jobs, too. Look at the past few months: BMW, Stellantis and Tata
are expanding their electric vehicle operations right across the
UK, from Oxford to Merseyside.
However, targets can be missed if Governments fail to take people
with them, and we will not make that mistake. So, people will be
able to buy new petrol and diesel cars until 2035, aligning the
UK with the likes of Canada, Australia and Germany. It is fairer
on British consumers, it allows us to grow the used EV
market—lowering costs and increasing choice—and it ensures we
raise confidence in our charging infrastructure. In fact, public
charge points are already up by 43% since last year and set to
grow even further thanks to investment from both the Government
and private sector.
For many, that is the future, but today, in some parts of the
country, drivers are being punished and cars vilified. The Mayor
of London’s expansion of the ultra-low emission zone is forcing
drivers to sell up or pay hefty daily fines. Overzealous
enforcement practices—from yellow box junctions to blanket 20 mph
zones—are turning drivers into cash cows for councils. Measures
to overly restrict where and when people travel are already being
planned in places such as Oxfordshire. My message to councils is
simple: this anti-motorist campaign has run out of road. This
Government recognise that cars are not a luxury; they are a
lifeline. They are how most people in rural constituencies such
as mine access work, education and essential services. That is
why, after listening to the concerns of motorists, I have
announced a new long-term plan for drivers, with 30 measures that
will protect their rights to travel how they want, where they
want and when they want.
We will use AI technology to keep traffic flowing. We will build
a national parking platform to make it easier to find and pay for
a space. We will inject some common sense into enforcement: where
20 mph zones are necessary exceptions with local support, not a
blanket norm; where rules are enforced to keep our roads safe,
not to line council coffers; and where low-traffic neighbourhoods
rely on public support, not on outdated Covid guidance. How many
times drivers get from A to B will be their choice, not decided
by councils. None of that undermines our investments in public
transport, nor in active travel. We are pro public transport, but
we will not be anti car. A sustainable transport network needs
both, so people can choose to travel in the way that best suits
them.
Let me now turn to our decision on HS2. With decades to wait
before it arrived and benefits dwindling, it risked crowding out
investment in other transport areas and no longer reflected
post-pandemic changes in travel. Despite that, some argue that we
should have carried on regardless—that a single rail line between
a handful of cities and London is more important than millions of
everyday journeys around the country. I disagree. The facts have
changed, so we are changing our approach. With work well under
way, we will finish HS2 between London Euston and the West
Midlands. Just last week, I spoke to the Euston Partnership Board
on the huge regeneration opportunity that can be unlocked with
private investment. However, by stopping HS2 in Birmingham, we
can reinvest every penny of the £36 billion saved in transport
across the country, in the roads, the local bus services and the
regional train links—all those essential daily connections that
people rely on.
No region will lose out, receiving either the same, or more,
government investment than under HS2. Almost £20 billion will go
to the north, with Bradford, ignored under previous proposals,
now getting a new station and faster rail connections to
Manchester. Northern Powerhouse Rail is now extended to include
Hull and Sheffield. A separate £12 billion fund will better
connect Liverpool and Manchester, and I have already spoken to
the Mayors of Greater Manchester and the Liverpool City Region to
kickstart work on that.
West Yorkshire, thanks to £2.5 billion of funding, will finally
get its mass transit system built in full. Over 20 road schemes
will be delivered, and crucially, we will more than double the
transport budgets of northern mayors, benefiting our largest
cities and smallest towns.
We are also investing in the Midlands, with almost £10 billion
ensuring the Midlands Rail Hub is completed in full, increased
mayoral budgets, including £1.5 billion for the new East Midlands
city region, and councils—from Stoke on Trent to
Lincolnshire—seeing long-term transport funding settlements for
the first time.
Finally, the remainder of this transformational investment will
be spread across the UK, including: extending the hugely popular
£2 bus fare cap, which people will see the benefit of just next
month; delivering the Ely junction project and north Wales
mainline electrification, benefiting both passengers and freight;
and dealing with the menace of potholes, with £8.3 billion in new
funding to resurface roads up and down the country. All told,
Network North is a new vision for transport—one that creates more
winners in more places, one that prioritises people’s everyday
journeys, and one that drives the growth and jobs that this
country needs.
I will finish with this: we will never shirk the long-term
decisions to secure this country’s future and we will always be
guided by the needs of the British people. When the majority want
a pragmatic route to net zero, we will back them. When drivers
feel unfairly targeted, we will back them. When the public want
us to focus on the journeys that matter most to them, we will
back them. This Government are delivering on the people’s
priorities. I commend this Statement to the House.”
7.56pm
(Lab)
My Lords, this government announcement on the scrapping of HS2
was the cancellation of Europe’s largest infrastructure project.
The announcement was made outside of Parliament just a few days
after we had gone into recess. There is no other way to describe
this than that it shows utter contempt for Parliament and for
those affected by the decision.
This announcement was made in Manchester about the infrastructure
project that was designed to support levelling up for—guess
where?—Manchester. That shows contempt for the people of that
city. The announcement was made without consultation with the
elected mayors and council leaders of any of the areas affected;
they too were treated with contempt. The announcement was made in
spite of the lives already disrupted by the progress of HS2: the
owners of farms, homes and businesses where the hurt and harm had
already been done—all of them treated with contempt. The
announcement was made in spite of disruption to families and
businesses at Euston, who now face the prospect of a black hole
where the interchange should have been. They too were treated
with contempt.
But the greatest contempt from this Government, in all of this
sorry tale, has been their contempt for the British people: a
high-speed railway line from London to Manchester that goes to
neither central London nor Manchester; a decision taken but
denied for days, in spite of the fact that the video recording of
the announcement had already been made in Downing Street days
before the Prime Minister’s visit to Manchester; a list of
alternative schemes on which the funding would be spent, which
appear to have been cobbled together on the back of a fag packet,
and 85% of which were schemes already delivered, some many years
ago, non-existent schemes or jack-in-the-box schemes such as
Bradford railway station, which pop up every time a Minister
needs to make an announcement only to disappoint communities
again when they get pushed back inside the box and
re-cancelled.
Then, there is the funding wasted. Seriously, the Government must
think the people of this country are stupid. I have some
questions for the Minister. Exactly when was this decision taken?
When was the recording of the announcement made? Why was this not
reported to Parliament before our Conference Recess? Why was
there no consultation or discussion about the cancellation of
this part of HS2 with the mayors and leaders of the areas
affected before the announcement was made? How is it now planned
to improve the failing, inefficient and overcrowded services on
the west coast main line —of which many of us have had very
recent experience—and the east-to-west services in the north of
the country? How will we restore the confidence of investors and
businesses to deliver major infrastructure projects in this
country after this debacle?
The cancellation of HS2 at the same time as the Prime Minister is
rowing back on climate change commitments and painting himself as
the champion of the fossil-fuel car risks undermining not only
this country’s reputation on green issues but the economic
growth, innovation and investment that a move to zero- carbon
transport would generate.
(LD)
My Lords, what a shambles. In their frantic search for a few more
votes in order to cling on to power, this Government have
abandoned their pretence at leadership on decarbonisation. They
have abandoned their pretence to modernise our public transport
system along with any claim to care about pedestrian safety or
clean air, which is so important for our health and particularly
the health of our children. It is important to remember that 20
mph zones are not anti-motorist; they are pro-pedestrian. You are
five times more likely to die if hit by a car at 30 mph than at
20 mph. I remind noble Lords that fewer than half of us as a
percentage of the total population drive cars, yet almost all of
us are pedestrians.
By abandoning targets for electric vehicles, the Government have
undermined the automotive industry and deterred new investment.
The Statement refers to an increase in the number of charge
points, but the huge restriction on that expansion in their
number, especially at motorway services, is the capacity of the
grid. So what plans do the Government have to expand that
capacity?
Of course, HS2 has not been well managed—the current Government
have been in charge—and it is costing a great deal. It is not
good value for money because the Government have turned it from
an ambitious high-speed project into a short-distance shuttle. It
is a fact that it costs more per mile to build any form of
infrastructure in the UK than in almost any other country in
Europe. Rail infrastructure costs are generally twice the amount
per mile of those in France. Will the Government hold an inquiry,
not just to into HS2 and how it came to cost so much and go so
badly wrong, but into why we are so bad at building major
infrastructure projects that provide value for money?
The Prime Minister announced a list of replacement projects, many
of which were just recycled announcements. One of them, the
Manchester Metrolink to the airport, has actually been in force
for nine years. The Government then said that this was just an
illustrative list—“This is a road”; “This is a railway”—but we
did not need that sort of illustration. Can the Minister clarify
the status of the wishlist? How and when will final decisions be
made?
There was an announcement of £8.3 billion for potholes. We have
plenty of potholes, I will give the Government that, but I am
suspicious of the amount because it sounds to me like a difficult
figure to account for. We might find it difficult to track
whether that money has gone fairly across the whole country to
the areas that need it most. Can the Minister explain the
mechanisms the Government intend to use for the disbursal and
spending of that significant amount of money?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Transport () (Con)
I am grateful to both noble Baronesses for their contributions on
this incredibly important Statement. It is the case that the
Government had to make a difficult decision. The facts have
clearly changed, and we needed to change our approach. All noble
Lords will know that the situation with business travel is very
different nowadays. Leisure travel has increased but business
travel did not come back. On the basis of those facts, we had to
make some decisions.
In doing so, though, we have repurposed the investments that
would have been made in HS2 into a vast array of
investments—mostly in the north, I will grant, but then I am
often asked about investments in the north. I am delighted that
about two-thirds of this investment will go there while much of
the rest will go to the Midlands. I am really excited by the
various investments that the Government have set out. Many of
those were not mentioned by the two noble Baronesses but I will
try to work them into my answers because there are many. Neither
noble Baroness mentioned buses. We love buses, and we are
investing an additional £1 billion in them. That is the sort of
thing the noble Baronesses have been pressing me to do for a very
long time and we are doing it—but no, there were no thanks for
those sorts of things. I will answer their questions, but I will
try to get the good news in as I can.
The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, asked me a number of questions.
She will have to forgive me; I am afraid they came out very
quickly and I was doing my best to try to follow them, but I will
try to answer them. The decision was taken by the Secretary of
State the day before the announcement. Obviously, there was a
Cabinet meeting on the day of the announcement to discuss the
decision and to reach collective agreement, and it was then
announced by the Prime Minister. Had that agreement not been
reached, the Prime Minister would have been unable to announce
the cancellation and the massive investment which is the
corollary to the cancellation, and the video would not have been
played. I cannot get too excited about a video.
However, I will be clear that this is a decision for the
Government. It is a government programme. The Government set the
policy direction of HS2, and HS2 Ltd is responsible for the
delivery of the railways, so it is a government decision, a
national decision. However, as the noble Baroness will know, and
I am sure she is delighted to hear, the Government are committed
to investing £12 billion to improve the speed and east-west
connectivity between Manchester and Liverpool. For those sorts of
things—that vast sum of money that will be invested in east-west
connectivity—it is up to local leaders to help us shape that
investment. The noble Baroness will also be pleased to know that
we have started discussions with the metro mayors and their teams
on how we are going to get the best out of that £12 billion.
It is worth talking about delivery. Many of the projects that
were in the package are delivered by different people. This is an
important aspect to understand: the Government can shape the
programme of National Highways and indeed Network Rail but, when
it comes to investment, for pretty much everything else we are
reliant on local partners, and that is absolutely right. People
throw the criticism towards the Government, “Oh, but your list is
somehow illustrative”, but of course it is. We are not going to
drive a coach and horses through local democracy. In the LLM and
MRN projects, not only has funding being topped up for about 70
road schemes, so that they will be funded 100%, but we are doing
another round of funding. However, neither of those things can be
done without the agreement of the local authority. It is up to
the local authority to bring forward projects for consideration
for funding, and indeed to develop the business cases. So, for
some projects, in five years’ time the noble Baronesses may turn
round to me and say, “Baroness Vere, you did not deliver on that
project”, but that probably would not be down to the Government.
It would be down to the local authority deciding that, for
whatever reason, it was not right for their area, and that is
fine.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, had a lot of questions that I
think I was able to write down. I will try to address as many of
them as I can. She somehow accused the Government of scrabbling
around for a few more votes. Gosh, that sounded like a Lib Dem
by-election candidate campaigning against HS2. The Lib Dem Front
Bench must find it very amusing that they campaigned against what
was party policy.
The noble Baroness mentioned the issue of low-traffic
neighbourhoods and investment in active travel. I am proud of the
fact that this Government stand with those who drive cars. Cars
are not a luxury; they are a lifeline. However, we are very clear
that our investment in active travel will continue. We are clear
that 20 mph zones need to have local support. We think that
enforcement should be pragmatic—of course it should; that is just
rational and reasonable. In our long-term plan for drivers we set
out 30 measures that we think will help people travelling around
in their cars day to day. As all noble Lords will know, many more
people use their cars than use the trains, for example.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, mentioned zero-emission
vehicles and that somehow this was very destructive for the
industry. I would like to reassure her that we are working
closely with the industry and that the manufacturers are on
board. We have seen investment in the UK from BMW, Stellantis and
Tata, expanding their electric vehicle manufacturing operations.
Of course, we have also brought ourselves into line with great
nations such as Canada, Australia and Germany. We are not unusual
or an outlier in doing this at all; we are just being
pragmatic.
I will admit that we need to continue focusing on charging
points, and we absolutely are. They have gone up by 43% since
last year and continue to go up very quickly indeed. We work
closely with the DNOs on making sure that there is grid capacity
at motorway service stations and elsewhere, and that continues
all across the country.
The noble Baroness mentioned the business case for phase 1 of
HS2. I think she referred to it as some sort of shuttle or
whatever. I am sorry, but that shuttle she referred to has a BCR
of between 1.2 and 1.8, which is very reasonable for such a large
infrastructure project. She also asked why it cost more. HS2 is
costing more because it goes through some very densely populated
areas. There are significant amounts of tunnelling, with six big
tunnels in phase 1 alone, and significant environmental
mitigations. Of course, if the noble Baroness wants us to remove
the environmental mitigations, I am sure it would be much
cheaper, but this Government would not do that.
I do not accept that we need an inquiry as to why we are in the
situation that we are, because a lot of people scrutinise our
major infrastructure projects all the time. The Infrastructure
and Projects Authority and all sorts of other people do so,
including the Transport Select Committee.
The noble Baroness mentioned the potholes funding, which involves
a really important amount of money. It is not only about
potholes; it will literally enable local councils to resurface
roads, which I know many noble Lords will be able to support.
Again, it is being skewed towards the north because this funding
goes to where that money would otherwise have been spent.
However, there will be £3.3 billion to the north, £2.2 billion to
the Midlands and £2.8 billion for the rest of the country over 10
years. That will make a significant difference. It is in addition
to the money allocated in the spending review of 2021, and in
addition to what the usual expectations from a local council
would be. This is new money, and that additional money will make
a huge difference to our roads.
8.12pm
(Lab)
My Lords, many noble Lords and other people have said to me, “You
must feel very pleased that you won and it got cancelled”. I do
not look upon it that way at all. I have been campaigning for
many years now because the cost of HS2 was ballooning, but my
main reason was that I thought it was the wrong project for what
was being built. The costs had gone right out of control and the
Prime Minister made the right decision. I am sorry that lots of
colleagues will disagree with me.
The question we have to ask the Minister, and ourselves, is: what
next? The Prime Minister made the commitment to £36 billion being
spent on public transport and other things. That is set out in
some ways in the Network North document. I am very pleased to
know that some of my friends in Devon and Cornwall will get a
slice of something called Network North—well, that is all right.
We have to make sure that this is actually delivered. The most
important thing for me is to see the delivery in the hands of
people such as the noble Lord, , and his team opposite.
They actually represent the transport people in the Midlands and
the north who will be the users of whatever gets done there, to
some extent. I hope that devolution will help to support that and
that they will be given enough money and decision-making powers
to make it work.
My questions to the Minister include one or two urgent ones. What
about safeguarding of the land? How much of it will be reduced or
removed—and when—in phase 2a, phase 2b west and any other bits
that do not get used? What is going to happen to the bit between
Birmingham and Old Oak Common or Euston? It could do with a
repurpose as a railway, but there are ways of saving money
without affecting the effect at all.
My final question is: what is going to happen at Euston? The
Statement is clear that there is going to be a development
company involved. But then I read something else in the press
which said that there is no government money going into this and
that if the development company cannot make it work, it will not
get built. That is not good news for the people who live around
there. I remind the Minister that if the project stopped at Old
Oak Common, which I still think is perfectly reasonable, she
would save £12 billion, on my figures. Maybe that does not matter
and maybe it does. We also need to have a proper design of the
tunnels going into Euston, because there is no safe design. We
presented one to the Select Committee about 10 years ago. It got
rejected by HS2, but it may be worth looking at that again. I am
very happy to sit down with the Minister and anybody else to talk
about this further.
On this very rare occasion, I support what the Prime Minister has
said. Let us make it work in the future.
(Con)
I am very grateful for the noble Lord’s support for the Prime
Minister’s decision. I would like to reassure him that another
piece of good news, which I have not been able to talk about so
far, is the massive increase in CRSTS—the city region sustainable
transport settlements. We are adding billions of pounds to the
second tranche of this. These are very significant amounts of
money. For example, Greater Manchester will get an additional £1
billion. Again, the same is going to the West Midlands. We are
adding to the £8.8 billion that we had already said the mayors
would get. There will be several billions of pounds; forgive me,
I cannot add it all up in time. It is sufficient to really
turbo-charge some mass transit schemes. For example, in West
Yorkshire we have committed £2.5 billion to fund a mass transit
scheme in full. Finally, Leeds and the surrounding areas will
have one, which will be amazing. That is a very positive thing.
We recognise that devolution to the metro mayors is a good
thing.
On safeguarding matters, we recognise that there is an issue with
safeguarding and blight. We will be going through the proper
legal processes and following them for properties that are no
longer needed. For phase 2a, the safeguarding will be formally
lifted within weeks. For phase 2b, it will be lifted next
summer—the rationale for that is that there will still be some
significant rail infrastructure projects in the north, and we
need to make sure that we do not sell land we subsequently need.
As the programme is developed, that land will either be sold or
kept if it is needed.
On Euston, I am going to have to disagree with the noble Lord. I
think that sometimes the private sector can do wonderful things.
I refer the noble Lord to Battersea Power Station. If noble Lords
have been there, they will know it looks quite remarkable. That
attracted £9 billion in private sector investment.
(LD)
My Lords, I am sure the noble Baroness can imagine the delight of
seasoned north Wales travellers, like myself, when they heard the
Prime Minister mention the electrification of the north Wales
main line in his conference speech. Can the Minister clarify
whether the Prime Minister’s commitment to the electrification of
the line is a cast- iron commitment or if it was included in his
conference speech merely for illustrative purposes, as he now
says other schemes were? I may be dubious and cynical, but
history teaches us in Wales what happened to the commitment to
electrify the Cardiff to Swansea line. If it is a commitment, can
the noble Baroness inform us when work on the business case for
the project will start?
(Con)
I do not know for sure, but I imagine that work on the business
case will have already started. All these projects are at some
point in the whole business case process, which, as the noble
Baroness will know, is very lengthy. We are very committed to the
upgrade of the north Wales line. It is completely due, and it is
our ambition to work with Network Rail and other delivery
partners to make sure that we do it in the most effective
way.
(Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chairman of Transport for the
North. I say to my noble friend that I realise the position she
faces defending this decision. For the last 13 years, any
Minister standing at the Dispatch Box would have been saying why
HS2 was, in fact, the right decision. Big transport
infrastructure projects are always incredibly difficult. They are
never without controversy and this scheme certainly was not.
I believe that the scheme, as originally designed, was the right
one. I find it ironic that I could go from London to Paris,
Brussels or Amsterdam on a high-speed train, but I cannot do the
same for the great cities of the United Kingdom. It is an
argument I made as Secretary of State, and I am not going to
deflect from it now. I believe that overall it was the right
decision for United Kingdom plc.
However, my noble friend keeps referring to the work that will
carry on with the metro mayors. It is a great pity that they were
not consulted before this decision was made. I find it rather
ironic that, on the Tuesday the Prime Minister was telling us all
that he was not going to be rushed into a decision, but then he
made it a major part of his conference speech on the Wednesday. I
have been involved in prime ministerial conference speeches in
the past, and they are not usually put together in the last few
hours before delivery.
Can my noble friend tell us now that we are going to get every
transport plan we ever wanted because we have freed the schemes
and we will see a utopia as far as transport is concerned? Some
of this money seems to be going into revenue rather than capital
investment, which is an interesting thing to see eventually on
the department’s accounts.
This is not going to go away. A lot of people have been affected
by this particular scheme and have had things compulsorily
purchased for HS2 which are no longer going to be wanted. I do
not think we will have heard the last of some of the problems
that will be facing us as far as HS2 is concerned over the next
12 or 18 months, or even the next two years. This is something
that is going to continue.
Ministers can point to Birmingham and say what HS2 is doing for
Birmingham. I am sorry that that is not going to be done for our
other great cities. That is a regretful notion that we will come
to think and talk about. However, we have to make sure there is
greater connectivity between our great northern cities, because
there is a potential that is untapped. It needs tapping if the
United Kingdom is truly going to be a country of equal
opportunities across all of its regions.
That is what I hope will happen over the next few months. A
decision has been made, and it does not look like the Official
Opposition will say they will reverse it. If they did say that,
it might change some of the argument, but they are not doing so
yet. That also needs to be borne in mind. The implications of
what has been announced will take some time to debate, and it
will take time for the full ramifications to become known.
(Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend. I note his reflections and, to
be honest, I share his disappointment to some extent, but I
accept the decision. He made some valid points about the
challenges that still face the HS2 project as a whole, and I
agree: there are no major infrastructure projects that do not
have significant challenges. But it is heartening to know that
the Government are beefing up the governance arrangements of HS2
Ltd. A new chief executive is being recruited, and Sir , the new chair who took his place in February, is
very much involved in the recruitment to make sure that we get
the right person to take the project forward.
My noble friend mentioned that there is some switch from capital
to revenue—that always makes a Transport Minister excited because
we do get much revenue funding in transport—but it is still
mostly capital, of course, because we are talking about capital
spend. This is an opportunity to mention one other piece of good
news that I have not been able to mention to date: the “Get
Around for £2” bus fare cap has been extended to the end of
December. Again, that is revenue spend, and it is being used by
millions of users. It has been really well received, and I am
very pleased that we have been able to extend it.
(Lab)
My Lords, I remind the House of my interest as chairman of the
Great Western Railway stakeholder board. It is a privilege to
follow the noble Lord, , who in the view of many of
us was the most outstanding and successful Secretary of State for
Transport in the past 12 years. The very good sense with which he
spoke in this debate is an indication of why he is regarded with
such respect.
The noble Lord was absolutely right in all his points. I do not
intend to repeat them, but I would like to address the Minister,
for whom I feel enormous sympathy because she has defended High
Speed 2 day after day from that Dispatch Box and has not been
supported by everyone in the House—and certainly not by everyone
on the Benches behind her. She has now come along to defend a
decision that is, frankly, absolutely indefensible because of the
damage it does to the future prospects of the great cities of
this country, as the noble Lord, , said.
I have one question, which occurred to me when I heard the Prime
Minister’s statement and read the documents today: what has
happened to Great British Railways? Has it now been completely
junked? If so, would it not be honest of the Government to say
so? It is not a question of waiting for parliamentary time or
using other means of establishing Great British Railways, about
which I have written to the Minister. Is it still the
Government’s intention that there will be a guiding mind and that
the decisions about the future of British railways will at last
be taken by people who understand how they work?
(Con)
I reassure the noble Lord that it is still the Government’s
intention that there will be Great British Railways. As I have
said previously, it will depend on parliamentary time, but an
enormous amount of work is of course going on in the meantime to
establish an interim guiding mind to get as many things as we
can. There are matters to work through as we develop the guiding
mind principle—industrial action obviously being one of them—to
give the senior leadership the head space they need to make some
significant changes to establish a guiding mind.
(GP)
My Lords, freeing roads for people and cyclists and reducing
urban road speeds are a public health measure as well as a
transport measure. They are a move to benefit small independent
businesses in city centres as well as a step towards improved
road safety, of course. A review was published in The Lancet
Public Health journal, gathering research on low-emission schemes
from around the world. Five of eight showed a clear reduction in
heart and circulatory problems, and none showed a worsening. In
Oxford, where Broad Street’s parking has been removed and new
LTNs have been created, the city-centre footfall has grown by
15%, versus a UK average of 0%, while the shop vacancy rate is
6%, versus 13% in the south of England. Should not decisions
about road use and conditions be made locally—as they have been
in the Prime Minister’s own constituency, where North Yorkshire
Council is significantly expanding 20 miles per hour speed
limits—rather than be imposed from faraway Westminster?
(Con)
Yes, they absolutely should and, of course, the Government issue
guidance for local authorities to make those decisions.
(LD)
What has happened to the money saved from the cancellation two
years ago of the eastern leg of HS2 into Yorkshire, linking with
the east coast main line? The Statement refers to a saving of £36
billion by stopping HS2 at Birmingham, of which £20 billion will
go to the north. I am not clear from the Statement or from the
Network North document what the plans are for the upgrade of the
east coast main line, which has been consistently promised but
does not appear in these documents. This is an issue of great
concern to me, but it may be that the upgrade money is actually
identified and the saving the Government have generated in the
eastern leg link through Leeds and to the east coast main line is
part of the £36 billion. I do not think it is—I think it has
already been delivered as a saving—but I do not know where the
money has gone. The Minister may like to write to explain that
issue.
(Con)
I would certainly like to give more information. My notes say
“east coast main line”, but they do not exactly say what that
means. It is our intention to continue the work we had planned
there, as it is with many of the wider schemes in that area.
The focus of the announcement was very much on the savings from
the cancellation of the route to Manchester, because that is much
further developed. The Manchester line would have been open by
2041, so we were looking at savings over that period. Looking
even further into the distance would really stretch noble Lords’
credulity—but over that period up to 2041 we can see the projects
coming through. I shall write with further information on the
east coast main line.
(LD)
My Lords, having just last week travelled by high-speed rail from
London to Switzerland, it is shameful to me that the country does
not seem able to be part of the great European high-speed rail
transit system, especially for those of us who live in the north
of the country—although that now includes the south-west and the
Midlands. That brings me to the great cities of the north of
England: Liverpool, Manchester, Bradford, Leeds, York, Newcastle
and Hull. Currently, they are served by the worst performing of
all the rail network companies, and the routes are not
electrified. Can the Minister give us an absolute guarantee that
the trans-Pennine route from Liverpool to Hull and all those
other cities will be fully electrified, using capital that has
been reallocated to northern transit systems? By fully
electrified, I mean including under the Pennine section.
(Con)
What I can say to the noble Baroness is that our plans for the
trans-Pennine route upgrade continue, and all the cities she
mentioned are ones on which we have a laser-like focus. She
mentioned Bradford, which got left out of the IRP. We had to make
difficult decisions in the IRP, and we have been able to put that
back. We will be looking at routes to Hull and Sheffield. I have
already talked about the Manchester to Liverpool investment of
£12 billion. As a Government, we recognise that east-west across
the north is very poorly served at the moment, and I am very
pleased that we are able to make such an investment.
|
