All 1 Debates between Christopher Pincher and Louise Ellman

Transport Committee Report (High Speed Rail)

Debate between Christopher Pincher and Louise Ellman
Tuesday 8th November 2011

(12 years, 5 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
Louise Ellman Portrait Mrs Ellman
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

While we are committed to the necessity for high-speed rail, we think it important for the detailed issues that we have raised to be considered fully.

Christopher Pincher Portrait Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
- Hansard - -

Will the hon. Lady give way?

--- Later in debate ---
Louise Ellman Portrait Mrs Ellman
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I am running out of time, but I will give way once more.

Christopher Pincher Portrait Christopher Pincher
- Hansard - -

The hon. Lady says that the Committee’s report raises important points, and she says that the environmental impact has not been properly assessed. Does she believe that that impact will have a significant effect on the net cost-benefit ratio in the business case?

Louise Ellman Portrait Mrs Ellman
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

That is an important point. I cannot anticipate what the impact would be, but we think that other factors, including the importance of reducing current overcrowding, should be assessed as well. Ultimately, any cost-benefit ratio would have to take account of the findings in regard to those factors, and possibly others as well.

The significance of the 250 mph maximum speed should be explained in relation to the choice of route, and the value of time-saving per individual should be reconsidered. The importance of reducing overcrowding should also be assessed. Much more progress must be made on decarbonising fuel before High Speed 2 can be seen as an essentially green project. Any reduction in carbon emissions that is attributable to high-speed rail should be determined by the extent to which the UK’s energy is decarbonised, although it is certainly true that travelling by high-speed rail is greener than travelling by car or plane. The information that we currently have does not make clear the extent to which high-speed rail would replace air travel, particularly in phase 1. We repeat our call to the Government to publish a transport strategy so that the role of rail and aviation, including high-speed rail, can be assessed in a national context.

Those are our major concerns. We believe that they must be addressed if the High Speed 2 legislation is to complete its passage through Parliament in what, as I have explained, would be a lengthy and detailed process. A decision to invest in a new dedicated high-speed rail network would be the single most important transport infrastructure investment for generations. Our report supports high-speed rail, and identifies important matters that must be addressed before final decisions are made on High Speed 2. I call on the Government to respond constructively.

Question put and agreed to.