Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con) I beg to move, That this
House has considered Network North and the cancellation of HS2
Phase 2a. It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr
Davies. I am delighted to have secured this debate. The
cancellation of High Speed 2 phase 2a is an important topic for
consideration, as is the transfer of funding to what has been
dubbed Network North. I will start by making my position crystal
clear. I welcome the...Request free
trial
(Stoke-on-Trent South)
(Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Network North and the cancellation
of HS2 Phase 2a.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Davies. I am
delighted to have secured this debate. The cancellation of High
Speed 2 phase 2a is an important topic for consideration, as is
the transfer of funding to what has been dubbed Network North. I
will start by making my position crystal clear. I welcome the
cancellation of HS2 phase 2a because the reality is that it would
have caused great pain to Staffordshire, and I welcome the
Network North initiative because it promises great gains for
Staffordshire. Because Staffordshire is the heart of the country,
and is increasingly a national base for north-south and east-west
logistic operations, its gains will be gains for the whole United
Kingdom economy.
There is of course a big “but”. Network North is greatly
encouraging—but it must not merely illustrate projects; it must
deliver them in a coherent programme of transport improvements
that get the country moving and deliver productivity gains.
(Lichfield) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate on an issue
that is very important for Staffordshire, as he rightly points
out. Does he know—perhaps the Minister can clarify this later if
he does not—where the money will be allocated in the west
midlands region? In Lichfield, we are very keen to extend the
cross-city line, which runs through Birmingham and Lichfield to
Burton. There will be a station to serve the National Memorial
Arboretum. Does he think funding might be available for that?
My hon. Friend has been a long advocate of restoring the
important cross-city line. I very much hope that such local
considerations will be taken on board and that funding will be
directed locally to make a difference. I am sure the Minister
will clarify the position and expand on what my hon. Friend
said.
When we can see the wood for the trees, the important point is
this: there are localised projects that will help knit together
our national transport network for the benefit of a far wider
range of people than the elite who want to get in and out of
London on business expenses as quickly as possible regardless of
the consequences for local communities in Staffordshire, like
those in Yarnfield and Swynnerton in the constituency of my hon.
Friend the Member for Stone ( ). We have already experienced
that in north Staffordshire, even before HS2 phase 2a. I am not
just talking about the Beeching axe, which was bad enough and of
course did not exclusively affect the Potteries; I am talking
about the last Labour Government’s decision to make it quicker to
get between Manchester and London via the west coast mainline
Potteries arc by annihilating three local stations that had
survived the Beeching cuts of the 1960s.
(Stone) (Con)
Is my hon. Friend aware that we led a massive campaign to reopen
Stone station, and that the footfall there has been absolutely
phenomenal since it was opened, which demonstrates the need to
get these stations back in line?
Absolutely. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Stone station
was a victim of the west coast upgrade changes, but thanks to his
work and that of those who campaigned for its reopening, it has
reopened and been extremely successful. I hope we continue to see
those types of station reopen.
The west coast upgrade meant that in Stoke-on-Trent, for marginal
time gains between Manchester and London, Etruria station—the
very place where the fist sod was cut for the North Staffordshire
railway in September 1846—was closed by the Labour Government in
September 2005. To the south of the city, Wedgwood and Barlaston
stations were suspended in 2004 and neither has subsequently
reopened or been maintained in a good state of repair. I
understand from Network Rail that neither can now be reopened to
passenger services without significant investment and potentially
being completely rebuilt, which means that there is now no
intermediate local station between Stoke-on-Trent and Stone.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Stone illustrated, the same
happened with Stone station, but thanks to his efforts and those
of the community, it was reopened in December 2008 and now has
some services for that town. So much for Labour’s Strategic Rail
Authority! That experience has made us determined that HS2 would
either have to work for Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire, or we
would have to drop it entirely. Unfortunately, it had become
clearer and clearer that HS2 would not bring benefits to
Staffordshire, certainly not the net benefit that we would need
to see to justify the horrendous disruption, painful compulsory
purchases and the disruption of ancient woodland.
A constituent attended my surgery recently whose business has
been and continues to be affected. Unbelievably, he has recently
been asked by HS2 Ltd to commission further thousands of pounds
of costly reports to prove the value of his business, despite the
2a route no longer even going ahead. He is not alone: many
businesses and property owners throughout Staffordshire continue
to be hounded by HS2 Ltd and forced to give up their businesses
or sell their land, despite phase 2a being cancelled. A line must
be drawn under the compulsory purchase order process. I am sure
we will hear more about that tomorrow in the Backbench Business
debate on HS2 compensation that is being led by my hon. Friend
the Member for Stafford (). Ultimately, however, it is
essential that the Government keep to their word and urgently
lift the safeguards on the 2a route, and that efforts are made to
rapidly extricate HS2 from the lives of people in those
communities and elsewhere in Staffordshire.
Every day that goes by costs the public purse considerably in
extortionate security costs and wasteful legal processes for
sites that are no longer even needed. If further clarity were
needed that HS2 would not bring benefits to Staffordshire or
indeed nationally, it was striking to hear from Trevor Parkin and
Trevor Gould from the Stone Railway Campaign Group at the oral
evidence session of the Transport Committee in Birmingham on 30
November last year. Trevor Gould said:
“I was a great advocate of the HS2 project. I fully support the
idea in principle and I still think that it is important that
high-speed trains are segregated from freight and slower
passenger trains, but unfortunately this HS2 is not the way to do
it; it does not do what it says on the tin. It does not release
capacity north of Birmingham, it does not improve connectivity
because of that”.
As we know, the three fast trains an hour currently serving
Staffordshire—one via Stafford and two via Stoke-on-Trent—were
set to be replaced by one HS2 service calling at both, which
would have terminated at Macclesfield. That is a major reduction
on what we currently enjoy, so it is not at all clear that there
would have been extra capacity or connectivity, which is what HS2
was supposed to address. In fact, according to HS2 Ltd’s updated
2022 strategic outline business case, the only places north of
Birmingham that would have received a higher number of services
than they do today would have been Runcorn and Liverpool.
In the meantime, there is a pressing list of other projects that
need to be delivered to ensure local services and connectivity
into the hub stations are maximised. The reason for that is the
major constraints at Crewe, particularly Crewe North junction,
which were made worse post phase 2. HS2 had no plans to increase
the number of platforms or address the constraints at Crewe North
junction, which means the only possible way to run HS2 services
would have been to take out what already exists, removing local
and regional connectivity. I am not even convinced that HS2
intended to run any meaningful service to Stafford,
Stoke-on-Trent and Macclesfield.
On 10 January, the executive chair of HS2 Ltd, Sir , appeared before the Transport Committee and I asked
him to clarify some striking comments that he had made to the
Public Accounts Committee on 16 November. I put it to him that he
had said to the PAC that if HS2 phase 2a had indeed been
built,
“HS2 trains would never have gone on to the west coast main
line”
at Handsacre and that “they would have joined” the west coast
main line only “north of Manchester.” To that he replied: “Yes.”
Of course, I pressed him on that because it would mean that the
proposed services to Stafford, Stoke-on-Trent and Macclesfield
were never actually going to materialise, even on completion of
phase 2a. Sir Jon said that
“if 2a had been constructed, the advice to me, which I have got
written down here, is that we would not have used that
junction.”
That is Handsacre junction. I await further clarity in writing,
but that does, at face value, confirm my worst fears about what
HS2 Ltd was actually planning at Handsacre, which is a fait
accompli of connections that would not have carried HS2 trains up
the Potteries arc—and it would have all been too late by then to
do anything about it.
Macclesfield—always a very odd choice of terminus, fine though
that market town undoubtedly is—appears to have been a fig leaf
to quieten Staffordshire down during the construction phase.
Originally, under the hybrid Bill of 2013, it was proposed to
create a full connection at Handsacre for HS2 by connecting the
new track into the existing fast lines, enabling HS2 services to
join on to the west coast main line. Then, in 2019—Trevor Parkin
of the Stone Railway Campaign Group made this point very well at
the Transport Committee on 30 November—HS2 redrew its intentions
at Handsacre in order to join the slow lines of the west coast
main line and not the fast lines. The options analysis for that
extraordinary move has never been published, and we still do not
know why that bizarre decision was taken.
With the cancellation of phase 2, it is clearly essential that we
now revert to the original design for the Handsacre junction, to
enable a proper connection with the fast lines to maximise
capacity and allow services to run beyond. As I said, we await
further clarification in writing about the reasons behind the
changes, which are unlikely to be to do with cost, as people have
attempted to claim. It seems unlikely that HS2 had intended any
real, meaningful Stafford-Stoke-Macclesfield services to run at
all.
I am sorry to intervene on my hon. Friend again, but he mentions
Handsacre, which of course is in my Lichfield constituency, and I
am fascinated by what he says. I know, for example, that the
Mayor of the West Midlands, , is banking on the service
from Curzon Street in Birmingham providing an HS2 service, albeit
not necessarily at high speed, up to Manchester. That would be
impossible if the Handsacre link were now not to go ahead. My
constituents need clarity on this and I hope that the Minister,
in his reply, will be very clear about whether the Handsacre link
is going ahead—we all assume that it is.
I thank my hon. Friend for that point. It is essential that the
Handsacre link goes ahead, otherwise there is no way to connect
those services back on to the west coast main line to provide
that service into Manchester, Liverpool, the rest of the
north-west and ultimately up to Scotland. It is vital that the
Handsacre link is done right and that we see HS2 connect not just
on to the slow lines at Handsacre, but on to the fast lines. If
we connected it on to the slow lines, that would severely
constrain the capacity of the west coast main line in that
location, so it is essential that we revert to the original
design and that HS2 connects on to the fast lines at Handsacre to
maximise the potential of that capacity release.
The issues that we have been raising about Handsacre are things
that we have long feared. In January 2020, I wrote—with my hon.
Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent Central (), for Stoke-on-Trent North () and for
Newcastle-under-Lyme () and my right hon. Friend the
Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame )—to the then Prime Minister,
, to make it clear that our
support for HS2 was conditional on realising the Handsacre link
in full, with services to Stoke-on-Trent and on to Manchester,
and not just Macclesfield. Then, of course, the whole world
changed for two years because of the covid pandemic.
It became increasingly clear that the costs of HS2 were going to
balloon and that the focus on whether to deliver on it at all had
changed. Further, given the many failings of the project and the
few solutions it offered to the problems of capacity and
connectivity, with costs spiralling out of control, it is right
that it was paused for a period of reflection and that ultimately
phase 2 was dropped.
That decision frees up huge amounts of funding for other pressing
projects that are better suited to the post-covid reality of the
trend of working from home, and more flexible and online working.
Few of us had heard of Zoom or Teams before covid, but their use
is now commonplace, including for entire conferences. At the same
time, leisure travel by train has been very strong. We need to
see a network that meets today’s challenges and consumer demands,
and I think Network North can help us to achieve that.
For a start, unlike HS2, Network North recognises that the
transport network is not rail alone and nor is it just about
getting to and from Euston. Got right, the national transport
network improvements focused on the midlands and the north, with
enhancements such as junction 15 of the M6, which I hope will be
completely upgraded, will facilitate much more seamless travel,
faster journeys, more destinations and considerable freight
gains, including reduced carbon miles and greater connectivity
north-south and east-west that will benefit the midlands and the
north. Even projects undertaken outside the midlands and the
north will benefit those areas.
I particularly highlight the proposed rail upgrade at Ely
junction, which will drive the momentum we need to see towards
re-establishing a proper east-west freight route, with options to
increase freight from Immingham and Felixstowe to Liverpool via
the Potteries. Much of that currently takes a significantly
elongated route down to the north London line, across and then up
the west coast main line. That could also include reuse of the
North Staffordshire line. That would facilitate the reopening of
a station at Keele University, which was one of the aims of the
restoring your railway bid sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member
for Newcastle-under-Lyme. Its time will come, and probably sooner
if the result of dropping phase 2a is to closely look at
east-west links just as much as at north-south. The advantage of
that would be a significantly increased capacity on the west
coast main line by moving more freight on to other lines and
significantly reducing journey lengths for freight. That would
deliver major cost and environmental savings. Indeed, there is
now an amazing opportunity to look not just at linking up our big
cities with even quicker rail links than they already enjoy, but
at transport connections within city regions.
That brings me nicely to the major area of my speech today, which
is the use of capital release from HS2 phase 2a to fund restoring
your railway projects. Restoring your railway is a very good
scheme. It has been hugely popular among colleagues across the
House and the communities we represent. Its flaw has been that it
runs to only £500 million and that it expects some of the poorest
areas of the country to stump up 25% of the funding for any
projects taken to delivery. That local contribution hurdle has
threatened to be insurmountable for a number of schemes, so I am
completely delighted that that is no longer necessarily the case.
Suddenly, it becomes possible to get 100% funding for the
delivery stage of transformational projects, such as the
reopening of Meir station in my constituency and the reopening of
the Stoke to Leek line, which includes a station at Fenton Manor,
which is also in my constituency. That is hugely welcome and we
will continue to press the case for that funding in order to
achieve the national objectives of levelling up: increased
productivity, better connectivity, improved life chances, carbon
reductions and much more.
The misery of HS2 was going to be fully funded, so it is only
right that its successor projects are fully funded too. As I am
always keen to say, I fully support levelling up, but we cannot
simply level ourselves up after years of having so much taken
away from us by Beeching and the Strategic Rail Authority. Much
of our transport planning has been focused on making north
Staffordshire an easy place to get to and for outsiders to travel
through, but it is harder for local people to travel around. Meir
in my constituency, which has the A50 running through it, has
some of the worst traffic congestion. Despite 40% or more of
households in Meir North being without a car, there are still
major traffic issues there. Similar issues are seen in
communities such as Blyth Bridge, where local roads often take
the brunt of congestion, especially when anything goes wrong on
the A50 or the A500. Further consideration needs to be given to
addressing reliability problems on the A500 and A50 corridor, and
it is positive to see that corridor listed for improvements as
part of Network North.
In north Staffordshire, public transport—where it exists—is based
mainly on buses that often do not go to where people need them or
at a time when people want them. We have secured major investment
to improve our local bus services—there is £31 million of planned
bus service improvement funding—but the time has come to restore
our rail services as well. We should reverse the Beeching axe, so
that skills, training and employment opportunities are opened up
to communities such as Meir that are deprived on multiple
measures.
I am delighted that Meir station is now at the advanced project
stage of RYR, and very advanced in that stage. I want shovels in
the ground as soon as possible. A station will put Meir within 10
minutes’ direct train journey from the heart of the university
quarter in Stoke-on-Trent, whereas the bus journey can take over
an hour in traffic. I hope that, following the opening of Meir
station, we might also see a doubling of passenger services on
the line from Crewe, through Stoke and Derby, to Nottingham, and
go from one train an hour to two.
Meir is not alone in needing rail connectivity to Stoke town and
the university quarter—connectivity not provided by bus—so I am
delighted to see that restoring your railway has taken the
Stoke-to-Leek line project forward to the feasibility stage, our
strategic outline business case having been accepted. This line
was closed to passenger traffic in 1956, except for a few
football specials, and to freight in 1989, and has never served
some of the biggest post-war estates in Stoke-on-Trent. Even when
it ran, in the 1950s, there was no station for inter-war estates
such as Abbey Hulton, which has many of the same challenges as
Meir. Fenton Manor in my constituency will reopen under the
Stoke-to-Leek line proposals. That opens up a major centre for
leisure, employment and secondary education—St Peter’s Academy
—to more of our city’s residents, while reconnecting residents of
Fenton to the rail network.
Sadly, my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire
Moorlands is unable to be with us today, but she very ably
chaired the Stoke-to-Leek line project. It would be remiss of me
not to plug the benefits of visiting her beautiful constituency,
which more of our constituents will be able to do with ease once
the Stoke-to-Leek line is rebuilt. It can easily take longer to
get from Leek to Stoke-on-Trent station by road—especially by
bus—than it takes to get from Stoke-on-Trent to London by train.
Again, that makes the point that getting to and from London and
big cities such as Manchester slightly faster is not as pressing
a priority for people in Staffordshire as getting around and
across our county and its sub-regions more easily and
quickly.
To make that work, we really need Stoke-on-Trent City Council and
Network Rail finally to deliver the funded and promised packages
of the transforming cities fund. The city’s MPs have had to watch
with horror as delay upon delay has been announced in delivering
the package, although we busted a gut to secure the funding, as
the city council repeatedly seeks to redefine schemes that should
already have been delivered. I am particularly concerned about
the promised improvements to Longton station and the environments
of public realm around Times Square, with its iconic railway
bridge. Covid has too long been an excuse for the delays to these
projects. Longton needs a properly accessible station with lifts.
The Victorian ticket hall could also be restored. The station
needs to look and act like a station, rather than being just a
backwater of the town.
The Department has shown great patience, and I am grateful for
that. I hope it will consider all the options available to get
the transforming cities fund package over the line and delivered
in Stoke-on-Trent. I note that paragraph 69 of the Network North
document makes an explicit commitment to improving the
accessibility of our train stations, with £350 million more
having been provided for 100 stations. Funding released from HS2
can easily rescue aspects of TCF from further downgrading and
delay. Further improvements are needed at Stoke station to
increase its capacity, in terms of both platform and concourse
space.
The cancellation of phase 2 means that it is more likely that
high-speed services will run through Stoke to Manchester, so it
is essential that Stoke station be properly equipped to
accommodate those additional services. That is alongside the
Stoke-to-Leek services, the upgrade to two trains per hour that
we need on the Crewe to Derby line, and the potential for
additional freight. A lot of mothballed railway infrastructure in
north Staffordshire needs to be brought back into play, including
not only the Stoke-to-Leek line, which is still a statutory
railway that is owned by Network Rail, but a number of other
parts of the network.
On the Crewe-to-Derby line, we also need a redoubling of the
track between Crewe and Alsager, which would help to release
significant capacity and allow for increased services through
that part of the network. I would like to see track re-laid
around the back of Stoke station and new platforms to the west of
the station, which is currently a car park but was formerly full
of freight lines that ran around the back of the station to the
goods yard. The goods yard is now a major levelling-up project;
it is time for the station and its capacity to be levelled up as
well.
Given the tens of billions in funding released from HS2, there
will now be many hands in the air for projects across the
country, either those already included in the “Network North”
document or projects elsewhere. I have already mentioned junction
15, which was part of the road investment strategy 3 pipeline,
the A500 and A50 corridor, Meir station, and the Stoke-to-Leek
line. There are also existing RNEP—rail network enhancements
pipeline—projects that would be useful. I hope that the Minister
can say whether the Department intends to reallocate HS2 money to
any of those projects, or add in HS2-ready works that we need on
parts of the west coast main line to upgrade it to take phase 1
services.
When the RNEP was first introduced in 2018, the Rail Industry
Association welcomed it as an open and transparent way of sharing
the forward pipeline of potential works. It was updated in
October 2019, in what was intended to be the first annual update,
but there have been no updates published since, despite repeated
requests. It may be another casualty of covid, but the time is
right to revisit the RNEP and publish an updated list that takes
account of the changed focus following the cancellation of HS2
phase 2 and other, more recent publications. That will help to
prioritise schemes that will have the greatest impact on
connectivity, levelling up and productivity. I am confident that
Meir and the Stoke-to-Leek proposals will be important
additions.
A new station to serve Trentham or Barlaston, which I have been
campaigning for, would also be welcome. I am actively engaging
with Network Rail and the West Midlands Rail Executive on how
they could deliver that. It would restore the rail connectivity
that was lost with the suspension and demise of Wedgwood and
Barlaston in 2004, and to the Beeching axe, which closed Trentham
station in the 1960s. I have been on site with Network Rail at
the former location of Trentham station, and I look forward to
seeing Network Rail’s plans for how restored rail connectivity at
either Trentham or Barlaston could best serve communities between
Stoke and Stone.
Our transport problems in Stoke-on-Trent and north Staffordshire
cannot be solved by buses alone. We have tried that. Cross-city
journeys that were once reliably fast on our local train network
are now painfully slow on multiple buses that are extremely
unreliable because of severe road congestion. It is not that
buses have no place—they absolutely do—but they solve different
transport problems. They are not always the most viable
alternative to the car, or the most effective at cutting road
congestion, but that does not stop them being a valued part of
the public transport mix.
I welcome the extension of the £2 fare until the end of this
year; that will help get people back on buses. Passenger numbers
were in steep decline even before covid, and costs were certainly
a factor. I hope that the bus service improvement plan for
Stoke-on-Trent, which provides all-day bus travel for £3.50, will
galvanise that effect. However, if cross-city bus services are to
be restored, much rests on delivering a seamless bus-rail
transport interchange at Stoke station, which was promised under
TCF. Even then, they will not cover the cross-city journeys that
could easily be completed with a restored Potteries rail network.
Ultimately, we need an Oyster-style system that will allow
passengers to travel by both local bus and rail across the
Potteries. That might eventually also apply to a tram
network—something we are keen to see delivered in north
Staffordshire. To work up those proposals to the required level
of detail and engineering feasibility, some of the released HS2
moneys might need to be set aside for development funds. That
worked in the case of the restoring your railway fund, where the
initial hurdle is to prove that a transport problem exists, and
that a public transport solution needs to be explored—although I
repeat that a 25% local funding requirement is a major barrier to
achieving that.
I want to mention briefly the improvements that might be needed
on the west coast main line to make the network HS2-ready. In
addition to Handsacre reverting to the original design, we must
see action to address the issues at Colwich and create a properly
grade-separated junction there. Consideration should also be
given to what could be done to achieve four tracks at
Shugborough. At Shugborough tunnel, there is a section where
there are only two tracks. If that were addressed, there could
then be four tracks all the way to Crewe. As with Stoke station,
we need to look again at how best to optimise Crewe station. I
have already mentioned the need to redouble the Crewe-Alsager
section of the Crewe-Derby line, and the opportunity to reuse old
sidings at Longport to relieve congestion on that line.
We also need to look at the capacity constraints at Crewe that
HS2 Ltd failed to address, not least by drawing on Network Rail’s
2016 report, “Crewe Hub: improving capacity and connectivity for
our customers”. That report noted that services have to cross
over and share tracks at the Crewe North and South junctions,
which cannot fit any more crossing train movements. There is an
opportunity with the cancellation of phase 2 to focus on Crewe
station to help address some of those constraints.
In particular, we should seriously consider delivering the
bi-facing island platform on the Manchester independent lines to
the west of Crewe station. That was envisaged in the hybrid Bill
but subsequently scrapped by HS2 Ltd. I hope the Minister will
revisit that, because using those independent lines with a
bi-facing island platform will solve a lot of the conflicting
movements and congestion issues at Crewe, especially for the
Cardiff-Manchester train, and open up possibilities for more
frequent local services and new services, and for restoring lines
to Crewe. There can also be freight gains, and we need to
remember that our transport network is not just for passengers
but for goods and logistics.
Finally, I want to mention Northern Powerhouse Rail, which is
obviously impacted by the decision on phase 2, given that it was
proposed that it would share some of the track. However, I have
recently seen alternative proposals for upgrading to a different,
shorter route, which could offer a much more viable solution to
NPR. I will share those proposals with the Minister, and I hope
that he will give them serious consideration, as they could mean
delivering NPR sooner, with greater benefits, and at a third of
the cost of what is being proposed.
In conclusion, the cancellation of HS2 phase 2a promises to
release resources that can make Staffordshire a place of great
transport gain, instead of a place of great transport pain, which
is what HS2 was likely to make it. For the many people who have
had their properties compulsorily purchased, the pain has already
been incurred, and that pain needs to be drawn to a final close,
and properly compensated and addressed. At the end of the day,
HS2 phase 2a just did not add up, or rather its costs kept
mounting, but its benefits kept diminishing. We have an
opportunity to focus on local benefits that will add up to a more
coherent, productive and well-connected transport system across
road and rail, for the benefit of more than just those elite
travellers moving between our biggest cities. Meir station and
the Stoke-Leek line must be among the local schemes that are
delivered. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
10.04am
(Bath) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Davies. I
congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South () on bringing this debate to
the Chamber. It continues to be important to talk about HS2.
Rail should be a lifeline for our communities, connecting every
part of the country through green public transport. After months
and years of defending HS2 and spending millions of pounds
preparing for it to go ahead, we are left with nothing but a
missed opportunity, now that an essential part of it has been
scrapped. I have long supported HS2. High-speed rail should
modernise our railways, connect more of the country and increase
capacity. Our rail network struggles with constant delays,
cancellations and crowded trains. HS2 going all the way should
have been an important step forward for all our communities.
However, HS2 faced death by a thousands cuts. Its delivery was
characterised by Government mismanagement. It was hollowed out,
costs were allowed to spiral out of control and the Government
turned their back on Manchester and Leeds. Without additional
capacity, any plans to improve our railways will be limited, and
we will be left with a rail system that cannot effectively
connect the whole country.
Public transport will be crucial to our meeting our net zero
targets. It is a clean, green alternative to cars, and it
showcases the benefits of net zero to our communities. Transport
is the largest emitting sector in the UK. Rail produces over 70%
less carbon dioxide emissions than the equivalent road journey.
We must encourage a modal shift away from polluting transport
modes towards greener public transport such as trains. The
Government know that, yet Network North contains plans to move £8
billion meant for the railway to supporting road use. We need to
win hearts and minds for net zero, and demonstrate to people that
the green transition brings opportunities. However, at no point
have the Government attempted to bring the public with them.
Before cancelling the northern leg of HS2, they put a huge amount
of doubt in people’s minds about cost and impact.
We should be positive about public transport as a solution. HS2
and phase 2 should have been sold as a great improvement to our
rail infrastructure, rather than an expensive inconvenience. Each
train unlocked by HS2’s extra capacity could have removed over
120 lorries from the roads. Britain’s highways are already among
the most congested in Europe. The decision to scrap the northern
leg of HS2 will lead to up to half a million more lorry journeys
up and down the country, and a lot more congestion in our towns
and cities.
Tens of thousands of jobs and a great economic opportunity have
been lost. Why should anybody invest in the UK when the
Government do not provide long-term investment opportunities? The
Institution of Civil Engineers was clear that delaying HS2 would
mean that construction firms shifted their focus to other
countries. Our global trade is also affected, and the British
Chambers of Commerce emphasised that we need more capacity for
that reason. One in four sea containers arriving or departing
from a port is carried by rail. Our global partners need to be
able to trust that we can move at speed and with capacity. Now
businesses have been left with a gap in their strategic plans,
and where is the plan to establish Great British Railways? Why is
the transport Bill delayed?
The whole HS2 debacle has exposed the lack of an industrial
strategy. The Government should consider giving a statutory
underpinning to the publication of a national infrastructure
strategy every five years. We need certainty, and the scrapping
of the northern leg of HS2 just shows that when we dither and
delay about long-term strategic plans, all we have is loss and
absolutely no gain.
10.08am
Sir (South Staffordshire)
(Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I
congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South
() on securing this
debate.
I congratulate the Minister on making the right decision to
cancel HS2 phases 2a and 2b. HS2 is absorbing £1 in every £3
spent on transport in this country. Many of my constituents and
many people right around the country feel that that is the wrong
priority. Mr Davies, I know that you have long campaigned for the
bypass around Shipley. The cancellation gives us the opportunity
to spend the money in areas where it is required. I will touch on
a number of those areas.
A couple of decades ago, we saw the reopening of the Chase line,
which serves not just Cannock and Rugeley but Landywood station
in South Staffordshire. We have seen a transformation in
communities. With the electrification of the line, passenger
numbers have grown. That has also resulted from the change of
timetable on the Birmingham to Shrewsbury line, with a large
increase in the number of passengers. By getting investment right
in local services, as opposed to white elephants such as HS2, we
can transform communities and transform people’s lives.
I ask the Minister to take the opportunity to look at some recent
changes that have been detrimental to communities. An example is
the Birmingham-Stoke-Crewe line, where there has been a cut in
services because of timetable changes. I would appreciate the
Minister looking at that, because it is having a detrimental
impact on many local stations along the line. With the money that
will be freed up from the cancellation of this service, there are
opportunities to make further improvements to our network. We
could see the extension of the Manchester-Stoke service all the
way to Stafford, which would have a real benefit for many
stations across north Staffordshire.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South mentioned the
north Staffordshire railway link. Improving east-west
connectivity is absolutely vital for moving freight transport off
the busy west coast main line, to ensure it goes to places it
needs to and gets more freight on rail and off our roads. It
would be wrong not to mention our roads; I am delighted to see
that, as a result of the cancellation of HS2, Staffordshire has
benefited by an extra £4.4 million.
Let us be clear: the people of Kinver, Codsall, Wombourne, Great
Wyrley, Brewood and every place across south Staffordshire want
to see the potholes eradicated. That extra £4.4 million will go a
long way towards blitzing some of those problems. I appreciate
that it is not in his portfolio, but I ask the Minister to go
back to the Secretary of State for Transport and say that we want
more money to deal with those potholes right across
Staffordshire. This cancellation can make a real impact,
delivering better services in every community across
Staffordshire, but let us make sure that that money is well
spent.
10.12am
(Dwyfor Meirionnydd)
(PC)
Diolch yn fawr iawn, Cadeirydd; it is a pleasure to serve under
your chairmanship, Mr Davies.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South () on securing this debate. He
mentioned the slogan “gain or pain”. The slogan for HS2 in Wales
has become “The great Welsh train robbery”: it is a rip-off. It
will be interesting to see what the scrapping of the Manchester
leg of HS2 means for Wales. Scotland and Northern Ireland will
continue to receive billions of pounds in Barnett consequentials
from the remnant of the HS2 project from London to the English
midlands; Wales, of course, will not see a single penny in direct
consequentials from this project.
We recently heard the HS2 executive chair’s jaw-dropping
admission that the cost of HS2 has ballooned to £66 billion. That
means that Wales is now losing out on £3.9 billion in much-needed
funds. I ask the Minister directly to outline why he thinks there
is any argument for cross-UK equality while Wales is
short-changed to the tune of £3.9 billion. What reasons can he
give for not treating Wales in the same way as Scotland and
Northern Ireland? Just think what £4 billion could do for Wales’s
transport infrastructure, particularly in rural areas where bus
services have been run into the ground for years.
Extra funding within Wales, managed within Wales, would not just
benefit passenger services but allow us to develop freight
opportunities, which would in turn strengthen our economy—just as
the original railways did in 1804, with Richard Trevithick’s
pioneering locomotive in Merthyr Tydfil and the slate exports
from my own county of Gwynedd.
There is also the matter of the £36 billion that has been
reallocated from the scrapped phase 2 of HS2 to Network North
projects. Again, there is no clear indication whether Wales will
receive full Barnett consequentials for money that is spent on
services in England through Network North. There can be no excuse
for denying Wales full funding on those. Will the Minister
outline exactly what compatibility factors and quantum of
consequential funding Wales will receive from English Network
North projects?
The Government promised, with great fanfare, to pursue the
electrification of the north Wales main line, yet the current £1
billion pledge is, at the very least, 50% below what is now
estimated to be needed. The figure is based on a business case
made nearly 10 years ago; costs now are likely to be north of
£1.5 billion.
I ask Opposition Front Benchers whether they are content with
Welsh rail being permanently underfunded in this way. If they
form the next Government, will they commit to fixing this broken
funding mechanism? Do they accept the principle that HS2 is an
England-only project, and that Wales is owed full consequential
funding? The Welsh Labour Government already do, and there is
cross-party agreement on this in the Senedd. Will Opposition
Front Benchers here be at odds with their colleagues in
Wales?
The billions owed to Wales could be invested to reverse some of
the savage cuts made to bus services, which of course also result
from Westminster austerity. Over the past 15 years, rural bus
services in Wales and England dropped by 52%. In my county of
Gwynedd, bus service frequency has dropped dramatically, with
change in service frequency measured in trips per hours between
2010 and 2023 dropping by 50.5%. The Confederation of Passenger
Transport has estimated that a further 15% to 25% of all bus
routes in Wales will be at risk of cuts or significant amendment
over the coming year.
It is clear that the UK Government’s boastful rhetoric on
transport funding is at odds with people’s real life experiences
in our communities. The Government must match their rhetoric with
action and commit to full funding from HS2 to Wales.
10.16am
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
It is a pleasure to contribute today, Mr Davies. I was a member
of the Cabinet when the decision was made to change the
investment and reinvest the £36 billion to drive economic growth
across parts of the United Kingdom.
It may seem odd that I am here, but Felixstowe is actually part
of Network North, which recognises the fact that the port of
Felixstowe is the primary port of the United Kingdom. The
connections that need to be made, particularly on the rail
networks, are part of what will be financed at that point. That
is the primary reason why I am here today. In particular, the
document recognised the importance of the Ely and Haughley
junctions. That investment will lead to six more freight trains
per day from the port of Felixstowe, which is the principal route
for the northern powerhouse and a lot of the work that will be
done up there.
I completely understand that the Ely junction is rather
complicated and has had a variety of costings over the years, as
plans get more and more detailed. However, I call on the Minister
to really push ahead and give the all-clear to Network Rail to
re-form the team specifically on the Haughley junction. This is a
much more modest project, which was estimated to cost about £20
million. I recognise that, with inflation, that may now be
slightly higher. Nevertheless, there is an opportunity to get the
team back together, get that work going, and to get spades in the
ground, even if only on preparatory work this year. That will
help our resilience, both with freight trains and with the
passenger trains that link London to Norwich through the counties
of Essex and Suffolk. On the project team being disbanded, I know
that the Treasury has a part in this, but I am confident that the
green light from officials or Ministers in the Department for
Transport to Network Rail will enable us to get that together. It
is a modest project that does not need much investment to get
going.
I turn to the wider consequences of the cancellation of HS2. It
is important that where farming land has been purchased, we seek
for that land to go back into farming, recognising aspects of
food security. I also welcome the fact that the £2 bus fare has
been kept until the end of this year, without the anticipated
rise. That is a good investment in local public transport. I am
conscious that there has been significant investment through the
major road network on the A12, for which Suffolk County Council
has been granted funds that will help with the traffic and
congestion problems that arise in the area. Those problems are
anticipated to increase as a result of the construction of
Sizewell C, which is now under way after the development consent
order was triggered on Monday; I was pleased to be in Sizewell
for the recognition of that.
There are other elements of the A14 that really need looking at.
I encourage the Minister, as part of this wider investment, to
ask the roads Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for
Transport, the hon. Member for Hexham ()—to look at this carefully. I know that there was a
hugely successful project in Cambridge: it was brilliant and was
done on time, and it might even have been done under budget.
However, that should not be the end of the story for one of the
most important parts of the major road network in terms of
economic productivity.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir
) talked about potholes. It
is critical that the funds for potholes are ringfenced. There
have been some shocking situations with potholes in my own
constituency in Suffolk. I met the leader of Suffolk County
Council last Friday to discuss some of them, and this Friday I am
meeting the council’s cabinet member with responsibility for
roads. There are issues with the thoroughfare in Woodbridge,
aspects of Aldeburgh and parts of the main A12, and many other
places are struggling, too.
I know that the weather has been a challenge and that there have
been other issues. Suffolk County Council appointed a new
contractor, which started in October; it is not doing the job
that it should be doing. I am pleased that the council has
recognised that: the contractor is being hauled in front of the
council leader. It is important that we keep that scrutiny and
that the Government continue to ensure that taxpayers’ money is
delivered for the benefit of taxpayers, quickly, promptly and
effectively.10.21am
(Aylesbury) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I
congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South
() on securing this
debate.
I stood for election in 2019 in complete opposition to HS2. As
soon as I arrived in Parliament, I worked hard with colleagues in
the HS2 review group to try to get the entire project scrapped by
the then Prime Minister , but sadly we were
unsuccessful. Since the approval of phase 1, I have been tireless
in trying to secure better mitigation for my constituents and in
holding HS2 Ltd to account when things go wrong, which I am
afraid to say they do regularly.
My Aylesbury constituency has been perpetually, permanently
blighted by the construction of phase 1 of HS2. I am very pleased
that many colleagues here in Westminster Hall today will not
suffer such blight with the construction of phase 2. From
Fairford Leys to Walton Court, and from Stoke Mandeville to
Wendover, construction is causing untold misery for residents,
with noise, traffic and daily disruption to everyday life.
At last, in October, we were given a glimmer of hope that we
would finally receive some tangible benefit from HS2 through the
cancellation of phase 2. Two projects in my constituency appeared
on the list of 80 projects that were part of the Network North
plan: the south-east Aylesbury link road and the eastern link
road. Those two projects are critical to the future success of
the town. They will ease congestion, reduce air pollution and
help to spur economic prosperity, which are all things that we
can all agree are good for our communities. They are essential to
support the huge amount of house building that we have already
seen in and around Aylesbury and the thousands more houses that
will be constructed in the coming years. I am very grateful to
the roads Minister, who met me to discuss the roads projects and
promised to help me get them over the line.
However, recent communication from the Department for Transport
has caused me alarm and made me think that in fact the money for
those projects may not be given to my area in the way that we
were led to believe, if it is given at all. That would be wholly
unfair and profoundly wrong, given the blight that we have
suffered and continue to suffer.
Today I seek reassurance from the Minister present, who knows
Aylesbury well, that he will do everything in his power to make
sure that the two original projects in Aylesbury outlined on that
list of 80 projects for Network North will indeed be delivered in
their entirety in the Aylesbury constituency. Ultimately, the
simple fact of the matter is that the longer we delay unlocking
those funds for what are essential projects that will one day
have to be delivered, the more the costs will escalate and the
bigger the final bill will be. That would benefit absolutely no
one. My town is absolutely gridlocked because of this white
elephant of a project. We desperately need our share of the money
that is being saved by the decision to cancel phase 2A of HS2.
The people of Aylesbury deserve absolutely nothing less.
I would just say that we are not opposed to infrastructure at all
in Buckinghamshire. Indeed, many people locally support the
Aylesbury link of East West Rail. That is the railway that we
want in Buckinghamshire, but it always seems to be just out of
our grasp. I remind the Minister that we are very keen to see it
getting the go-ahead; I seek any undertaking on that that he
might be able to give me. We want railways that are right for our
communities, right for our society and right for our economy.
Several hon. Members rose—
(in the Chair)
Order. I am afraid that for our final two speakers, I will have
to drop the time limit to three minutes.
10.25am
(Stone) (Con)
Having voted against this and argued against it for the best part
of a decade, I was delighted by the Prime Minister’s decision and
by the Minister’s engagement. I have had many, many meetings with
Ministers and so forth about the issue over a very long time.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South
() on his extremely powerful
speech and on using his experience as a member of the Transport
Committee to amplify the issue. That is in addition to the work
of Trevor Parkin in my constituency, who has done the most
remarkable work on this area.
The line was due to pass straight through my constituency, from
top to bottom, and we are thoroughly relieved that it has been
stopped after all this time. It is still causing misery for many
of my constituents, however, and we are in the midst of
negotiations with HS2 over the sale of their property and land.
Communication has been slow or non-existent and, in the meantime,
the works and the spending of public money have continued. I urge
the Government to closely monitor the winding-up of HS2,
intervening when necessary, and to make sure that compensation is
paid. We will debate this issue in Westminster Hall again
tomorrow.
Finally, I will simply add that, along with the money that is
earmarked for improvements in transport projects, I agree with
everything that has been said in this debate about how regional,
national and east-west networks must be improved. Levelling-up
has been a tremendous opportunity, but that has to be delivered.
I am grateful to my constituents for the support that they have
given to me and to the Minister for the meetings that we have had
and for coming to the right decision.
10.26am
(Leigh) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (), I was an anti-HS2 campaigner
long before I became a Member of Parliament. I declare an
interest: phase 2b of HS2 did run through the Grundy family farm.
I recognise many of the issues raised by colleagues—communities
paralysed for a decade by uncertainty, businesses unable to
invest, people unable to sell their homes.
We were successful in getting HS2 scrapped. I am delighted about
that and would like to pay tribute to two colleagues. One of
them, who is sitting here, is my hon. Friend the Member for
Warrington South (). He fought manfully for his
constituents in trying to stop HS2. The other is my right hon.
Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West ( ), who consistently stood
against this project for a very long time.
There was a real issue with what was proposed. The people of
Greater Manchester wanted better connections between Manchester
and Liverpool, because those are their commuting patterns. My
hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South has said to me that
when his constituents get on the train in the morning, half go to
Manchester and half go to Liverpool. The idea that people in
constituencies such as ours would suddenly all decide to commute
to London from central Manchester because the journey is 15
minutes faster was slightly optimistic.
The other problem was that the changes would have meant that
places such as Warrington Bank Quay in my hon. Friend’s
constituency would have become regional backwaters. If
constituents of mine who would previously have gone via
Warrington—as I do when I travel down here—had wanted to travel
on the new HS2 line running through our constituencies and
connecting with part of my hon. Friend’s constituency, they would
have had to travel 30 miles north, through heavy traffic, to
Preston. They could not have travelled on the line that went
through our constituency unless they went to Preston to catch the
train. I thought that was profoundly silly.
My final words—the most telling, I think—are these: “We will get
all of the disruption with none of the benefits in an area with
the worst railway accessibility in the country. Why should we
accept that?” Those are not my words, ladies and gentlemen, but
those of Andy when he was the MP for the Leigh
constituency and expressed his concerns about the project to his
constituents.
On Network North, I am delighted that the money is being
redistributed to more popular transport projects such as the
bypass, which I raised at Prime Minister’s questions last week. I
look forward to meeting the Minister to discuss bringing forward
those projects.
10.30am
(Paisley and Renfrewshire
North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Davies. I
congratulate my Transport Committee compatriot, the hon. Member
for Stoke-on-Trent South (), on setting out the issues
so comprehensively. I disagree with most of his conclusions, but
that will not come as a surprise to him. He described Network
North as a coherent programme, which I thought was stretching the
truth a little. Nevertheless, he led the debate very well.
The hon. Member for Lichfield () spoke about the money
spent in the west midlands with regard to Network North, which
highlights how ridiculous Network North is; that spread means the
money is being redirected from the north. The hon. Member for
Stone ( ) spoke about the reopening of
Stone station, but he missed the opportunity to talk about
high-speed rail to Rwanda. Perhaps he will bring up that issue
later. It is much more likely to get to Rwanda than to the
Scottish border.
The hon. Member for Bath () spoke of death by a thousand
cuts, and the fact that the Government have turned their back on
Manchester and Leeds. I wholeheartedly agree, but they have also
turned their back on all the areas north of Manchester and Leeds
that are served by the west coast mainline. The right hon. Member
for South Staffordshire (Sir ) called HS2 a white
elephant. It is certainly becoming one, but that need not have
been the case.
The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd ()—I am sorry if I have
butchered the pronunciation of her constituency—was absolutely
right that Wales has missed out on Barnett consequentials from
this project. I have raised that issue many times myself. If it
is good enough for Scotland and Northern Ireland, it is good
enough for Wales.
The right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey)
understandably focused on the potential benefits of Network North
for her local area, and spoke of the return of any farmland
purchased for phase 2 delivery. The hon. Member for Aylesbury
() spoke of the benefits of the
local roads that may now be built as a result of HS2 cuts.
Finally, the hon. Member for Leigh () understandably spoke of the
desire for better rail links between Manchester and
Liverpool.
It is absolutely right that the GB rail network is expanded. It
is ludicrous that HS2 is the first mainline railway to be built
on this island for more than a century. That it has taken until
now for it to happen is a damning indictment of decades of
short-termism, penny pinching and blinkered policies. In less
than 50 years, France has built nearly 1,800 miles of TGV lines.
If we are lucky, it will take the UK 20 years to build less than
8% of that length of track.
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
I will if the hon. Gentleman is very brief, which is not in his
nature.
I will try to be on this occasion. Does the hon. Gentleman accept
that in France commuter lines run a lot slower than in the United
Kingdom? France has half the density of population and does not
go through the same procedures as us on planning permission—it
literally railroads the trains through.
I recognise some aspects of what the hon. Gentleman said, but I
disagree with other conclusions that he has drawn. It is
obviously up to the Government to change planning regulations if
they wish, but they have got themselves into a bit of a nightmare
with HS2 land purchases.
We have done all that for the bargain price of £60 billion. I
have said many times here and in the main Chamber that in the UK
we are often too timid in taking on big infrastructure projects.
Incremental change is good, but sometimes a big bang is the only
thing that will change things fundamentally for the better. Many
of us supported HS2 because behind the headline of a new
supercharged branch line south of Birmingham was a substantial
increase in capacity on the west coast mainline, and the broader
rail network would be freed up when traffic was switched on to
the new lines.
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
I will come back to the hon. Gentleman if I have time. He gave
quite a long speech at the start, although I appreciate that he
led the debate.
HS2 would not just have helped with the projected increase in
passenger numbers, but would have freed up freight paths that
could have played a huge part in modal shift by getting freight
that is currently on the back of heavy goods vehicles on to rail.
The cancellation of everything but phase 1 means that there are
no capacity gains north of Birmingham, and any new services that
were supposed to result from its capacity extension will somehow
have to fit into the already full-to-bursting track—again, all
for the bargain price of £60 billion. Only Great Britain could
chuck more than £60 billion at a new cutting-edge, gold-plated
railway line and end up with slow services to the majority of the
country. At £8,000 per inch, it will cost a monstrous sum of
money, delivering nothing to the north of England and Scotland,
but downgrading services.
Last week at the Select Committee, we heard from the chairman of
HS2, who confirmed to the hon. Member for Easington () that capacity between
Manchester and London will be reduced as a result of the
Government’s decision. Prior to that, we heard from the
rolling-stock companies, which outlined how the use of classic
compatible HS2 rolling stock currently planned by the Department
for Transport could result in a 24-minute deterioration in
journey times between Glasgow and London—so there would be
high-speed rail for those in Birmingham, less so for those north
of Manchester. Prior to that, the Committee heard from the former
head of the Strategic Rail Authority—someone I hope the
Government would accept knows his onions—that the decision to
cancel everything bar phase 1 means that
“there is no material increase in capacity north of
Lichfield”.
We are left with a shuttle service between two cities in the
south of England that already have nearly 180 daily services
between the stations, all for the bargain price of £60
billion.
Thirty years ago, the channel tunnel was meant to herald direct
services from all parts of this island to the continent. Those of
us outside the M25 were promised those services, adding to the
links enjoyed by London and Kent. Of course, those regional
services never happened. At least some of the trains that cost
the taxpayer over £200 million—£400 million at today’s prices—got
some use, later finding service on the French national railway in
a happy bonus for those passengers at the expense of those of us
who did without. Meanwhile, the Nightstar sleeper trains were
flogged at rock-bottom prices to VIA Rail in Canada at a third of
the price they were worth, and the promised link between the
original high-speed line leading from the channel tunnel to the
rest of the inter-city network never materialised—and it is
extremely unlikely that it ever will.
To recap, trains meant for Manchester, Glasgow, Cardiff and
Edinburgh ended up in Paris, Brussels, Toronto and Montreal.
Those trains were paid for by the UK taxpayer but flogged
overseas for a huge loss. The infrastructure promised by
Government to improve regional connectivity failed to
materialise, all while the rest of the UK—including Wales, with
no benefit—paid tax into a Treasury that is only happy signing
blank cheques for infrastructure that benefits London and the
south-east. In other words, the HS2 debacle is not the first time
Westminster and the UK Government have promised and failed to
deliver for this island outside the M25. It will absolutely not
be the last.
In contrast, the SNP Scottish Government have delivered 217 km of
electrified track in the last decade. That is a 32% increase,
including the Paisley Canal line, the Glasgow and Edinburgh to
Stirling, Dunblane and Alloa line, Edinburgh to Glasgow via
Falkirk High, Cumbernauld and Whifflet, Glasgow to Barrhead—with
a new electrified services between Glasgow and Barrhead just
starting in the last few weeks—and the East Kilbride line
currently under way, with the preparatory work for the next
project ongoing. We have new stations at Inverness airport,
Reston, Robroyston, Kintore, East Linton and Laurencekirk. We
have reopened the Stirling-Alloa and Airdrie-Bathgate lines,
along with the hugely successful Borders Railway, and the
Levenmouth link in Fife is nearly complete. We have the biggest
rolling-stock order in ScotRail history, pre-covid passenger
numbers were up 19% since 2011-12, the peak fare removal pilot
has been extended and, of course, latterly ScotRail has been
nationalised.
Only yesterday, we saw the real issues with the privatised model,
given the reports about the Avanti presentation. That highlighted
all that is wrong and the inherent waste of passengers’ and
taxpayers’ money in the current privatised model. Avanti and
other operators, including foreign state-owned rail operators,
are laughing at us. One slide was headed:
“Roll-up, roll-up get your free money here!”
The presentation described how the Government asked the company
to deliver good customer service and projects before
sneering,
“then they pay for it…nearly all of it!”
Performance-related payments for staff were
“too good to be true”.
In the case of Avanti management, I think most of us would
certainly agree that that is an understatement.
When the former Transport Secretary, the right hon. Member for
Welwyn Hatfield (), announced the creation of
GBR, the plan was for it to take over the development of rail
strategies from the DFT. That is desperately needed because the
omnishambles of HS2 has shown how catastrophically bad rail
policy and management has become. We still do not know when
legislation will be introduced to establish GBR, but whatever the
shape of the post-election Administration, it has to be one of
their transport priorities. We cannot end up waiting another
century for network expansion to be on the agenda again and we
cannot afford another £60-billion disaster.
10.40am
(Portsmouth South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Davies. I
thank the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South () for opening this important
debate with a very thorough contribution on the issues affecting
his constituency. We have had a range of contributions this
morning, with speeches and interventions from right hon. and hon.
Members.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South was right to flag the
huge waste and financial costs of the decisions by the Government
and the need for clarity and transparency on future plans. He was
also right to say that we need to make sure that we have a
strategy for rail that meets the demands of the future, improving
connectivity and addressing capacity needs as well as the
strategic value of freight.
The hon. Member for Bath () said that the Government had
turned their back on the north. She talked about the need to be
positive about the contribution of rail to our communities and
she set out the need for investment in jobs for our economy.
Right hon. and hon. Members also spoke about the need for clarity
on future plans for rail, for both passengers and freight.
Whatever we think of the decision, it is hard to put into words
how much of a mess the Government have made of HS2. It is easier
to identify who is responsible for this fiasco. As Chief
Secretary to the Treasury and then Chancellor, the right hon.
Member for Richmond (Yorks) () allowed costs to soar and
public money to go down the drain. As Prime Minister, his weak
leadership and mismanagement are what led to the chaotic decision
made in Manchester in October and the fallout that has happened
since—a decision that two former Tory Chancellors have warned is
an act of huge economic self-harm; which the Tory Mayor of the
West Midlands has described as “cancelling the future”; and which
the new Foreign Secretary said shows:
“We can no longer think or act for the long-term as a
country”.
It was a decision that the Prime Minister made without consulting
our metro Mayors or any of the communities and businesses that
depend on the project. The decision means that the Government’s
flagship levelling-up project reaches neither central London nor
the north of England, and it ensures that a now staggering
£65-billion high-speed train moves off the motorway on to a
gridlocked road the second it hits the north.
As we heard earlier, last week the chair of HS2 revealed that the
Government’s solution, cooked up in a conference hotel room in
Manchester, to send HS2 trains on the west coast mainline north
of Birmingham will mean fewer seats and longer journeys. What a
result after 14 years and £65 billion spent! To make matters
worse, in its place the Government announced Network North—
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
We have limited time, so I need to make progress. The Government
announced a plan so rushed and ill-thought through that it
included an extension of Manchester’s tram link to the airport, a
project that opened nine years ago; an upgrade to the A259 to
Southampton, a route that does not exist; and a
“brand new rail station…for Bradford”,
a project that has been scrapped and reinstated by three Tory
Prime Ministers in a row.
On investigation, it has quickly become clear that the vast
majority of Network North announcements relate to projects that
have already been built, have already been announced, or do not
exist. Just when we thought the fiasco could not become any more
laughable, just a week after the announcement, the Prime Minister
revealed that the Network North plans were only
“illustrative”.
Do Ministers really think that people will fall for that? They
will not, because they have had enough of the delays,
cancellations, rising fares and overcrowded trains that they have
to endure under this Government’s broken rail system, and enough
of being told that Network North is going to transform transport
in their community, and then seeing the money spent on potholes
in London. They have had enough of the broken promises by a
broken Government. Labour knows how vital infrastructure is for
economic growth, connectivity and attracting investment. After
this fiasco, we know that the north and the midlands—the entire
country—cannot afford to repeat the same mistakes that we have
had to ensure over the past decade.
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
No, I will carry on because I am conscious of time. The hon.
Member had plenty of time to speak earlier. We have launched an
independent expert review of transport infrastructure, headed up
by Jürgen Maier, so that we learn lessons from this mess, ensure
that we deliver transport infrastructure faster and more
effectively, and ensure that communities across the country can
see the benefits.
When a Government make huge decisions on the fly without
bothering to consult experts or the communities that they will
affect, the consequences are vast. I have heard from many small
and medium-sized enterprises whose long-term business plans were
built around HS2—businesses across the country that will now be
letting people go because of the chaos of the last few months.
People’s homes, land and businesses have been sold off, and they
will now be asking why. Three months on, the Government still
have many questions to answer.
On a point of order, Mr Davies. The whole nation is dying to know
whether Labour will reinstate HS2 phase 2a. Is it in order for
the hon. Gentleman to refuse to take any questions?
(in the Chair)
Having been here as long as he has, the hon. Member for Lichfield
knows that whether to take an intervention is entirely down to
the person speaking; it is not for anybody else to decide.
Thank you, Mr Davies. I am happy to answer the question from the
hon. Member for Lichfield: the Government have blown such a huge
hole in the HS2 project that, until we know what situation we
will inherit, it would not be right for me to set out what we
would do. The Government have created this mess.
I would like to put some questions to the Minister. Has an
economic assessment been made of the impact of the decision? How
much more taxpayers’ money will he spend on phase 1 through
rescoping, and how high should the public expect that bill to be?
What is the impact of the decision on rolling-stock orders, and
how many supply chain businesses does he expect to go under as a
result? What plan do the Government have to tackle congestion on
the west coast main line, which leads to many cancellations and
delays across the midlands and north, and which Network North
does nothing to resolve? How much more congestion does he expect
to see on our roads, given that the Government have spent 14
years focusing on this transport project, which they have now
failed to deliver?
I look forward to the Minister’s remarks, and I again thank the
hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South for securing the debate.
10.47am
The Minister of State, Department for Transport ()
It is a pleasure, as always, to see you in the Chair, Mr Davies.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South
() for securing this important
debate on HS2 phase 2a and Network North, and for the manner in
which he set out his case.
As has been mentioned, on 4 October last year, the Prime Minister
announced that phase 2a of HS2, along with phase 2b—the western
leg—and HS2 east, would be cancelled, and that funding would be
redirected towards alternative transport projects in the north
and midlands through Network North. Let me give a bit of the
background and rationale. The HS2 programme accounted for over
one third of all Government transport investment. That prevented
us from spending money on other genuine priorities, and it could
be argued that, if we were not investing in the areas that matter
to people, we were doing little to improve the journeys that
people make the most.
Network North will drive better connectivity across the north and
midlands, with faster journeys, increased capacity, and more
frequent and reliable services across rail, bus and road. Rather
than delivering phase 2a, the phase 2b western leg and HS2 east,
the Government are redirecting £36 billion to hundreds of
transport projects across the country, one of which, of course,
is in Shipley.
Will the Minister give way?
I will come to the hon. Member shortly.
Every region is now set to receive the same or more transport
investment, on an unprecedented scale. We will still deliver HS2
between Euston and the west midlands as planned: 140 miles of new
railway and new stations at Old Oak Common and Birmingham
interchange. HS2 tracks will end with two branches in the north:
one to Curzon Street station in central Birmingham and one to
Handsacre, near Lichfield, where HS2 trains for Manchester,
Liverpool and Scotland will join the west coast main line.
Delivery is well under way, and there are 350 active sites.
Initial high speed services will start between 2029 and 2033, and
will run between Old Oak Common in west London and Birmingham
Curzon Street. We will appoint a development corporation,
separate from HS2 Ltd, to manage the delivery of the project at
Euston, and create a transformed Euston quarter that will
potentially offer up to 10,000 homes.
I turn now to land and property safeguarding with regards to the
disposal that will come into effect now that phase 2a is not
being completed, and I will then come to point made by the hon.
Member for Portsmouth South ()—that it is not possible at
the moment for the Labour party to determine what it will do. If
he listens to this part, he will realise it is entirely possible.
We know it is just a smokescreen: the Labour party cannot make a
decision because it does not know what to do.
Safeguarding on the former phase 2a of HS2 between the west
midlands and Crewe will be lifted very shortly. The lifting of
safeguarding does not in any way trigger the start of a sell-off
of property already acquired. HS2 Ltd has ceased the issuing of
any new compulsory purchase notices on phase 2a and is now
working to close out all transactions across phase 2 that were
outstanding on 4 October. Where we can agree with property owners
to withdraw from an agreed acquisition, we will do so, but in
many cases we are under a legal commitment to proceed. In others,
we have discretion and we are examining those on a case-by-case
basis, considering the circumstances of the claimant and the
implications for the taxpayer to identify the right way
forward.
We are currently developing the programme for selling land
acquired for HS2 that is no longer needed, and we will set out
more details in due course. We will take the time to develop this
programme carefully to ensure that it delivers value for money
for the taxpayer and does not disrupt local property markets.
Under what are known as the Crichel Down rules, land and property
acquired through compulsory purchase or under statutory blight,
and which is no longer required, should in certain circumstances
be offered back to its former owner at its current market value.
We will of course engage with all affected communities throughout
this process.
Therefore, the choice will be quite clear for the Labour party.
As I said, the safeguarding will shortly be lifted, and the land
is not owned by the Secretary of State; it is owned by other
property owners who are stymied at the moment from doing what
they may want to do with it because safeguarding is imposed. No
land will be sold off until we are ready. It is perfectly
feasible for the Labour party, if it supports HS2 going ahead, to
say that it will put the safeguarding back on, which would be
relatively straightforward. As none of the land will have been
sold, it can just continue.
However, the Labour party will not say that because it does not
know whether it wants it to go ahead. The hon. Member for
Portsmouth South mentioned going to Manchester and not committing
to HS2 phase 2a or 2b, but that is exactly what the Leader of the
Opposition did last week. He went to Manchester and said, “We
will not proceed with that project.” Even worse, I am going talk
to all these projects, and hon. Members are here to talk them up,
but where are the Labour MPs to talk up these projects across the
north and the midlands? Nowhere to be seen. Those projects have
not been committed to, so where will the £36 billion that we have
committed to these projects go? The silence is deafening.
Will the Minister give way?
I am not going to give way because I am going to come to the hon.
Lady shortly. I want to refer to the points that my hon. Friend
the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South raised on the local causes.
He said that he is delighted with the decision on Meir station—I
was delighted to join him up at Meir to see the site— and since
then, he has been really successful in his campaign. That project
aims to provide a new station in the town of Meir on the existing
Crewe-Derby line, and it was awarded initial funding to develop a
strategic outline business case as part of the first round of the
restoring your railway ideas fund. The full business case is
expected to be submitted in July of this year, and decisions on
further funding for the project will be made within the context
of the broader programme. As he knows, his station is mentioned
in Network North; we are committed to it.
My hon. Friend mentioned Stoke and Leek, and a bid to reinstate
the railway line between Stoke-on-Trent and Leek has been made to
the restoring your railway programme. The proposal examines the
potential for six intermediate stations on the route, and the
Network North announcement included the intention to progress the
Stoke-Leek restore your railway scheme to delivery. I am grateful
to him for all his work on that.
Longton station is another that I visited with my hon. Friend.
That original station project includes public realm, cycle hub,
waiting shelters and accessibility improvements. The council has
faced a number of challenges in relation to cost pressures,
delays and technical issues. The estimated cost of the Longton
project is now forecast at £3.5 million to £4 million, compared
to £1.1 million at the time the funding was awarded. We are
committed to working with Stoke-on-Trent City Council—Network
Rail has entered into a development services agreement, and the
council has indicated that the project is forecast to complete by
September 2025. On junction 15, which my hon. Friend mentioned,
improvements are being developed and delivery would be on a
similar timeline as improvements to the A50. Those are all
subject to a supportive business case.
On a point mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield
(), I can assure him and my
hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South that HS2 will be
delivered with a branch to Handsacre near Lichfield. In the
absence of phase 2a, Handsacre remains the only connection
between the high-speed infrastructure and conventional rail. I
can confirm that work is being undertaken to assess the options
to enhance the railway in the Handsacre area, to support train
services and capacity, making use of the £500 million set aside
in Network North. I can give my hon. Friend the Member for
Lichfield that reassurance, which he can pass on to our fantastic
Mayor of the West Midlands, .
I will turn to the other contributions—none from Labour MPs
because they did not make any. I will start with my right hon.
Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) and thank her
for again championing the Ely and Haughley capacity enhancement
project. That will increase freight trains from 36 to 42 trains a
day from the port of Felixstowe, allowing trains to go into the
midlands, rather than further south. Network North has confirmed
its support. It is a project that I have long championed but we
have been unable to put on the list due to HS2 spend. Because of
this decision, we now can. The next steps are for a full business
case, and we are engaging with the Treasury. I take my right hon.
Friend’s point about getting back the Network Rail team on the
Haughley preparation work project. That is something that we are
looking at in the Department, and I thank her for her points.
I will turn to other contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for
Lichfield, in addition to his other intervention, referred to
funding for the cross-city line. Perhaps I can point him towards
the city region sustainable transport settlements and the local
integrated transport settlements, which are two funds from
Network North. As well as the list of projects we have committed
to deliver, we are also committed to deliver money on a devolved
basis, so that local transport authorities can determine on which
projects they want to spend their money.
For example, an extra £1 billion has been put into the city
region sustainable transport settlements fund for the west
midlands, which takes it up to £2.64 billion, allowing the west
midlands to make its own choices, because there is devolution
within this programme. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone
( ) mentioned the case for new
stations, showing their business case worth. He is absolutely
right regarding Stone, and we hope that will be the case for
Meir. I also want to thank him for his work with Trevor Parkin,
and for the time he took to drive me through his constituency, so
that I could see the impacts that he talked about.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir
) asked me to go away—in
the most polite terms, I am sure—and assess the west coast main
line timetable. I am happy to do so and will write to him. I hear
his call for more pothole funding for his roads. Every hon.
Member will have seen money given to them for pothole funding. It
is essential that it is spent well, and I hear his call that more
should be spent.
I now come to the contribution from the hon. Member for Bath
(), which I found
extraordinary. She made the case for HS2, and, of course, I
agree. That is why we are delivering 140 miles of it. I find it
extraordinary that I was delivering leaflets in Chesham and
Amersham for the Conservative party, talking up the project on
similar lines to hers, yet the entire Liberal Democrat campaign
in Chesham and Amersham was to run down HS2 and call for it to be
cancelled. I have no issue with individual Members campaigning
against HS2 because they always have done, but for a party in a
by-election to focus its entire campaign on cancelling a project
only to then stand here and talk it up—sorry, only a Liberal
Democrat could do that.
The leader of Plaid Cymru asked what HS2 does for Wales. The
reality is that it was always an England and Wales project, which
is why with Network North we are allocating £1 billion to the
electrification—
Will the Minister give way?
I will not give way. We are allocating £1 billion to
electrification in north Wales, and we will now further that
business case.
I will give my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury () the assurance he sought. We
spoke about the two road projects, and I will take that back for
consideration. He has my commitment. I drove through Aylesbury
last Saturday, and he knows I know it well.
I am also looking forward to visiting my hon. Friend the Member
for Leigh () next week.
We have a plan and we know what the plan is, though people may
disagree with it. My challenge to the Labour party is: what is
its plan? Will it go ahead with HS2? If not, will it commit to
some of these amazing projects across the country that the HS2
funding will deliver?
10.59am
I thank the Minister for his response and all those Members who
contributed to a full debate. I do not necessarily agree with all
the Opposition Members, but I thank them for their contributions.
I hope we can continue to work with the Minister and the
Government to deliver on many of the Network North projects we
have now seen come forward, because they will make a huge
difference, far more than could ever have been realised through
HS2.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Network North and the cancellation
of HS2 Phase 2a.
|
