High Speed Rail (West Midlands - Crewe) Bill
Helen Jones ExcerptsTuesday 30th January 2018
(6 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Laura Smith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant). I am not sure if my speech will be quite as colourful, I must say.
The significance of this Bill for my constituents cannot be overstated. Crewe is a proud railway town. In fact, it is believed that Crewe was named after the railway station, rather than the other way around. The current station was completed in 1837 and has been recognised as one of the most historically significant railway stations in the world. Crewe was chosen after the nearby town of Winsford rejected an earlier proposal, as had landowners in Nantwich, which is also in my constituency. Nowadays, there are 23 trains passing through the station every hour, with additional, less frequent, services. The railway has shaped our history, our heritage and our culture in my constituency. It still plays a part in our local industry at Crewe Works, which has been owned by Bombardier since 2001. At its height, Crewe Works employed more than 20,000 people, but that dropped to fewer than 1,000 just over a decade ago. That gives a feel of just how much my constituency has changed.
Many of my constituents see HS2 as an opportunity for Crewe to regenerate economically and reconnect with its identity as a key player in the country’s national transport strategy. Today, I will set out the reasons why I support the Bill and the case for HS2—a project that was, indeed, proposed by a Labour Government. In doing so, I hasten to add that my support for the project is not unconditional.
One reason why HS2 has had support in my constituency is that it is not simply another project designed for the benefit of the south-east, but would benefit regions across the country. However, there are concerns in Crewe and Nantwich that as the project increasingly comes under budgetary strain, the Treasury might lack the appetite for the level of spending needed to deliver the greatest return on investment.
I am particularly concerned by comments made previously by the Secretary of State for Transport that decisions regarding the future of my constituency will be subject to affordability. We cannot afford not to get this right. As such, I ask the Secretary of State to clarify today when we will hear the outcome of the Crewe hub consultation and the Government’s plans.
If all that HS2 achieves is a fast track between London, Birmingham and Manchester, there is a very real possibility that it will reduce my constituency to little more than a bedsit on a commuter belt, where the next generation are priced out of living in the towns that they grew up in.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
I apologise that I could not be here for the beginning of the debate. I fully support my hon. Friend on the need for a proper, integrated hub at Crewe, not least because that makes the spur that was proposed through Warrington absolutely redundant. A proper hub would enable many more towns in the north-west to benefit from HS2.
Laura Smith
I agree, and I will come on to connectivity shortly.
Such short-sightedness would be a huge strategic miscalculation and a missed opportunity to future-proof towns such as those in my constituency from the troubling economic trends that we face. This cannot be about helping to expand the cities at the expense of squeezing out growth in the communities that I represent.
Limiting the service to two stops per hour at Crewe is simply a nonsensical proposal that will not only hold back my constituency for generations but will have consequences for areas beyond the north of Crewe and north Wales. For Government to overlook the clear business case for seven stops per hour at Crewe, or to act as a barrier to the strong local and regional ambitions, would be unforgivable.
Regional inequality is a major threat to the UK economy. Despite talk of a northern powerhouse, we are being presented with further evidence that the north-south divide remains as deep as it has ever been. Many living in left-behind towns look to the past with nostalgia and to the future with cynicism—and who can blame them? Their communities have suffered all the worst consequences of aggressive globalisation, and for very little reward. In Crewe and Nantwich, there are almost 4,000 children living in poverty, and wages are below the UK average. In fact, 28% of workers are paid less than the living wage, which is worse than the average for the north-west. Young people struggle to see a future filled with opportunities, and work no longer provides an escape route from poverty for struggling families.
In many ways, it is getting worse. A report this month by IPPR North suggests that the attainment gap between the north and the rest of England has widened to 5% at NVQ4 level, setting the north up to be the worst affected by an adult skills crisis. Another report this month by the Centre for Cities predicts that the rise of robots will deepen the economic divide if current trends continue, with almost a third of jobs in the north and the midlands vulnerable to automation and globalisation. Another report by IPPR North this month indicates that planned transport investment in London is two and a half times higher per person than in the north of England.
Many northern towns and cities are still struggling to recover from the industrial decline of the 1970s and 1980s, and this north-south divide threatens to hold back our national productivity. Some businesses choose to pay almost four times as much per square foot for their premises in London and the south because of poor connectivity in the north. Decades of inaction by successive Governments have left the north at the mercy of the markets.
There is no greater example of the need for Government intervention and strategic economic planning than the unsustainable situation we find ourselves in. The market has failed to provide any answers for the north, and HS2 provides one way in which the Government can begin to address this problem as part of a wider strategy. If delivered properly, this project will place my constituency at the heart of the UK’s most vibrant economic area, providing a successful and sustainable future for the next generation. Britain’s future in the world is surely as a knowledge-based economy, excelling in areas such as high-tech manufacturing. Such an economy will require a national transport strategy that prioritises high levels of connectivity. This requires increasing capacity and reliability, not just decreasing journey times.
Crewe is already a gateway station for the north-west, with regional and long-distance connections to the wider north-west, the east midlands and Wales. The phase 2a link will help to provide much-needed additional capacity for freight and will improve reliability for commuter services. It should be welcomed that the Government have brought forward the opening of the phase 2a link to 2027 as that will provide benefits to the north-west and beyond. Making the most out of connecting HS2, classic rail and the motorway network at Crewe could create 120,000 jobs across seven major local authority areas. Work undertaken by the Constellation Partnership indicates that 20,000 jobs would be created at the Crewe hub campus alone, with 17,000 additional jobs in the wider area.
My vision for HS2 is not as an end in itself, benefiting only businesses and commuters, but as a catalyst for the radical rebalancing of our economy, redistributing wealth from London to places such as Crewe and Nantwich and the rest of the UK. I must stress that this is not about asking London to lose out to the north; it is simply about achieving sustainability for London while allowing the north to achieve its full potential, which will benefit our entire country.
I want everybody in my constituency to feel the benefits of HS2, even if they never ride a train in their lives. Rail lines from Crewe reach out across to the smaller towns of Cheshire, to Warrington and the Wirral, to Manchester and Liverpool, to Lancashire, Shrewsbury, Derby and Stoke, and even to Scotland and Wales. A proper regional hub at Crewe, with a new northern junction to allow for maximum onward connectivity, will provide unrivalled opportunities for the whole of Cheshire, north Staffordshire and beyond. It is imperative that Crewe has direct high-speed services to key destinations, including London, Old Oak Common, Birmingham, Manchester airport, Manchester Piccadilly, Preston, Liverpool, Glasgow and Edinburgh.
As such, I support not only this Bill, but expanding the scope of the current HS2 programme to enable the interventions needed to deliver the services I have described. Although the services that run on our high-speed network will not be determined by statute, our legislative framework will determine what we are capable of achieving. It is vital that this Bill is supported today, and that future Bills do not limit our options. A proper regional hub could take advantage of existing connectivity and extend the benefits of HS2 to millions of people in the north, including those in our often forgotten towns beyond the major cities.
Tolls on the Mersey Crossings
Helen Jones Excerpts(6 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered tolls on the Mersey crossings.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. Although the motion is in my name, it is very much the result of a team effort, as demonstrated by the number of right hon. and hon. Members on the Labour Benches today.
The issue of tolls on the new Mersey crossing has caused consternation across our sub-region and, for me, today’s debate centres on two pillars: deceit and inconsistency. In the mid to late-1950s, the Runcorn-Widnes crossing was a transporter bridge, the likes of which we now see only really in Middlesbrough, so when the new bridge was opened at the start of the 1960s it was a revolutionary leap forward in transport infrastructure. The Runcorn-Widnes bridge, the green bridge, the Silver Jubilee bridge—as it became after renovation in 1975—or even, simply, the bridge, grew as an essential artery for the sub-regional traffic, and it can be argued that the success of the area, from the growth of Liverpool airport to the industrial areas around Speke, Widnes and Runcorn and the new multimodal hub, has all been possible because of the crossing. But with its more than 80,000 vehicle movements per day, it was clear that the old bridge was beyond capacity and that, having been a source of growth in the past, it was in danger of becoming a brake on growth and development.
I say at the outset that I welcome the new crossing. The fact that we have a new bridge is not the issue. I also acknowledge that the tolls did not come as a surprise. How we pay for the new crossing has been a matter of debate since the project was first mooted, and that is where the inconsistency comes in. At this year’s Conservative party conference, the Secretary of State for Wales told the assembled masses, in relation to the removal of tolls on the Severn bridge:
“After 50 years—just think—no tolls, no booths, no charges and no long queues to get into Wales. This decision will immediately boost the economy of South Wales by over £100m a year. Equally important is that it brings the opportunity to bind the South West and Wales.”
He was right of course: infrastructure investment leads to economic growth and brings communities together.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
My hon. Friend makes a very good case. Was he concerned, as I was, to hear the Minister for the Northern Powerhouse, the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry), yesterday dismiss the problem of the tolls for the bridges and the Mersey tunnels limiting economic growth in the region and attribute, I understand, to the Mayor of the city region views that he does not hold?
Helen Jones
My hon. Friend is right about the decisions taken and the concern about traffic flows. Does he agree that evidence is now appearing that the tolling on the bridge is increasing traffic flows through Warrington, which is already very congested? And that is after the former Member for Warrington South appeared in the 2015 election in front of a big banner saying, “No tolls”, so people rightly feel aggrieved.
Derek Twigg
My hon. Friend makes an important point. There is increased traffic going through Warrington, which was always expected, and that is causing further congestion. Again, it comes back to this: if a bridge is tolled, some traffic will try to find an alternative route. How long that will go on for, I do not know, but it is having an impact.
The reality is that we needed a new bridge. The Silver Jubilee bridge was congested, its capacity was far exceeded, and it was having an effect on investment in the borough because people were regularly queueing to get over the bridge. Sometimes, if a vehicle broke down or there was an accident, people could be there for hours. There was a regular queue of traffic going over the bridge. It is in need of major repairs as well, which is why it has been shut for about a year to carry out the repairs. Imagine closing that bridge with no other bridge in place: there would be chaos not only in Warrington, but all round the north-west. The fact that the bridge was needed is indisputable, and we need to understand that.
There is also an issue of pollution. Communities around the Silver Jubilee bridge had to cope with all the pollution of standing traffic and huge traffic increases. There was no doubt in my mind about the need for a bridge, but as I say, I want an untolled bridge, as do colleagues. However, we have this situation at the moment, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister will say.
As part of the discussions that I had, I met George Osborne, the former Member for Tatton, along with colleagues Graham Evans, the MP for Weaver Vale at the time, David Mowat and Andrew Miller. My primary aim in having that meeting was to argue that, for Halton people, it is their local road. They use it to go to the hospital, to work and to the train station, to go shopping and simply for normal business. I do not know anywhere else in the country where a borough has a tolled road that people have to cross to get to another part of the borough. It simply does not exist. It would be totally unfair.
George Osborne eventually accepted my argument and agreed that residents in Halton should be able to travel toll-free. He put out a press statement in July 2014 to announce that. I will make this clear for the Minister. The Treasury press release stated that the bridge
“will be free to use for all Halton residents”,
with
“a small charge”
for registration. It stated:
“The extension of the discount scheme will...apply to...categories of vehicles included in the existing discount scheme.”
I have written to the Department on numerous occasions because around 425 residents in Halton are in bands G and H and, because of the discount scheme, are excluded. The fact is that George Osborne—the Treasury—said that all residents would be able to travel free. I keep getting letters back from the Minister quoting the issue about the local discount scheme, but it is not quoted here. It is clear.
I also wrote to George Osborne, and on 5 December 2015, he wrote:
“I am happy to confirm that as the Government has previously announced, tolls for Halton residents will be free once the Bridge opens.”
That is very clear. There are no ifs or buts, and no mention of excluding people in bands G and H. It is totally unfair for people in bands G and H to be denied the chance to travel free, albeit with a small charge, across the borough. Why should they have to pay? It is completely unfair and not reasonable. I hope the Minister will go away and look at this matter again, because the policy should be changed. Not all of the people in bands G and H are cash-rich. In some cases, people are not on great incomes, but that is not the point. In principle, they should not have to pay. I hope the Minister will look at that issue.
On small businesses, the then Chancellor made a statement—my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) referred to that. I have the press coverage here and witnesses heard him say this. As well as extending the scheme to Cheshire West and Chester, and Warrington, the then Chancellor said there would be “a special scheme” to help small businesses. He added that if firms paid nothing, taxpayers could pick up a higher bill, but he said that there will be a scheme to help small businesses. Of course, once he went, the promise to Cheshire West and Chester, and Warrington, was ditched, so I wrote to Ministers again. Halton businesses have the same issue as residents because they use the bridge a lot more. It is their local base. Again, the Minister wrote back and said there was no way that could be done, and this time used the argument about state aid rules.
I got in touch with the Library to do some research, and the Library believes there is a way of helping at least some small businesses by having a scheme in Halton. Again, the Government have ignored that, after a promise made by the former Chancellor of the Exchequer. I hope the Minister will look at that as well.
Another issue raised regularly with me is about businesses in Halton that might suffer as a result of paying the extra tolls, particularly if they are transport-heavy, such as haulage and delivery companies. Also, the constituents of my hon. Friends here today travel in and have to pay the toll. Some businesses tell me they are fearful of losing experienced and skilled staff who might go elsewhere because they do not want to pay the £1,000-a-year toll. The Minister needs to look at that issue, which has been raised with me by several companies.
The Minister needs to look seriously at some of the promises that were made and should revisit them. Although I want free tolls for everybody, the key issues for me are my constituents in bands G and H, small businesses, staff travelling into Halton and the impact on businesses. Most businesses think faster speed and lack of congestion are great. They are happy with that, but some have expressed concern about paying the toll.
HS2 Update
Helen Jones Excerpts(6 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
The original justification for the Hoo Green to Bamfurlong spur was the siting of a stock depot at Golborne. The Secretary of State has confirmed today that that will be moved to Crewe and that he will develop the Crewe hub. The costs for that part of the line have been repeatedly questioned and the devastation it will cause to the two villages of Culcheth and Hollins Green in my constituency has not been taken into account in any economic assessment. Does he accept that this spur is now the whitest of white elephants and yet another example of the concentration of HS2 on big cities and the neglect of its effect on towns?
Chris Grayling
No, I do not, because the Golborne link is an important part of ensuring good connectivity for Preston, Lancaster, Carlisle and Scotland. If we are to deliver better connectivity to Scotland, we need the Golborne link so that the trains can use that route to reduce journey times as much as possible. I am afraid that I do not accept the hon. Lady’s point. I understand the reluctance in parts of her constituency to have this piece of the line developed. We will obviously do the right thing by the people affected, but this is an important part of delivering connectivity to the northern part of the country that would not otherwise happen in the same way.
HS2 Update
Helen Jones Excerpts(7 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Grayling
I give my hon. Friend an assurance that that will happen. It happens, of course, as part of the consultation process for such proposals, and the hybrid Bill process that lies ahead will give his constituents every opportunity to seek change from this House, in the same way as they previously sought change from this Government.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
The original justification for the spur that goes through my constituency was the stock depot at Golborne. It has now been announced that that depot will move to north of Crewe, so why is the Secretary of State continuing with a spur that will devastate the village of Hollins Green in my constituency, have a huge environmental impact on Culcheth, even though the line has moved slightly, and does not even give Warrington a station so that it can profit from all that disruption? There are other places in the north-west besides Liverpool and Manchester, but the Secretary of State seems to have forgotten that, if we are going to have the HS2 line, they need to profit from it, to compensate for all the disruption.
Chris Grayling
The hon. Lady of all people should know that the last thing I would do is forget that places such as Warrington exist. The issue on the west coast main line north of Crewe is that much of the route through Warrington and up to Wigan is two-track. To try to fit the HS2 trains while meeting existing demand for freight and for passenger services from Liverpool and Manchester is almost impossible to engineer. We have, therefore, chosen the route that maximises rail capacity through Warrington. There will be HS2 services that serve Warrington and that, in addition, create the speed, connectivity and extra capacity that we need.
High Speed 2
Helen Jones Excerpts(9 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) on securing this debate. In the short time available to me, I will focus on an issue of great concern to my constituents. The Hoo Green to Bamfurlong spur would be the whitest of white elephants. Building it would destroy two villages in my constituency, Culcheth and Hollins Green, and inflict serious environemtnal damage.
The case for the spur has now been seriously undermined. The spur results from a perverse decision to join the west coast main line north of Warrington, rather than north of Crewe. The original cost of the spur was estimated to be £800 million, which has now risen to £1 billion. HS2 justified that cost, as opposed to the £750 million original estimate for joining the west coast main line south of Warrington, on the grounds that it would otherwise have to do a great deal of work to Crewe station. That has now fallen apart because, after the Government accepted the recommendations of the Higgins report, Crewe will now be the main transport hub for the area.
There is no justification for not joining the main line near Crewe. The costings given for that were, to say the very least, dubious. The average cost works out at £22.9 million a kilometre. That sounds a lot, but it is only 28.6% of the cost of building the line elsewhere, which includes building a huge viaduct over the Manchester ship canal, bridges over the motorways and big embankments running through the village of Hollins Green. The costings simply do not stack up.
The second part of the case against the spur is the economic damage that would be caused to the villages of Hollins Green and Culcheth. The line would destroy a business park just outside Culcheth, with the loss of 500 jobs. The knock-on effect would mean that the village of Culcheth and all its businesses not only lose business from those people but lose outside trade because three of the four main routes into the village would be closed during construction, possibly causing many businesses to fold. Culcheth is a large village that relies on trade from outside coming into its shops and restaurants.
Similarly, a viaduct on Hollins Green would bisect the ancient parish of Rixton-with-Glazebrook and destroy businesses in the area, and the prospect has blighted homes, yet the Government cannot give us the figures. In other words, the economic case is being made without making the case for the damage caused to the economy elsewhere. Warrington will not benefit from this part of the line because it will not get a station. Nor is there a knock-on effect elsewhere in the constituency, which, as one gentleman said to me, might have justified what is happening. We have the pain, but we do not have the gain. In fact, we would probably end up with a worse service from Warrington than we have now, given that we already have one train an hour to London and one train an hour to Glasgow. We can get to London in just under two hours on a direct train.
I say to the Minister that the case does not stack up. The Government have not looked at the whole economic benefit, and they need to save £1 billion of public money by abandoning the spur.
Frank Dobson
I should add, Mr Betts, that the people who have been making those preposterous estimates, coming up with ludicrous proposals that will not work, are all very well-rewarded consultants. I believe that they have already had three quarters of a billion pounds in fees, so hard-working consultants are doing rather well. As far as I can see, the only train that has actually moved is the consultancy gravy train.
I advise people that if we want to benefit the cities of the north, the answer is to invest in the cities of the north and their immediate transport requirements, rather than spending what it is now believed will be £7 billion on a full-scale development of Euston. Will Sheffield, Leeds or Manchester benefit from an investment of £7 billion in Euston? Euston certainly will not benefit, and I do not think anywhere else will.
Helen Jones
On a point of order, Mr Betts. Would it be possible at this point, as this is possibly my right hon. Friend’s last speech in the House, to record our appreciation of his service over many years, particularly to his constituents, and his devoted service to the national health service, from which we have all benefited?
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
Of course, that is not a point of order for the Chair, but the Chair’s inability to comment on it should not be taken as disagreement with it.
Lilian Greenwood
I will not give way because I have very limited time; I am sorry.
It is sometimes said that we should just upgrade what we have, and of course we need to invest in the existing network, but the delayed and over-budget Great Western works are showing just how difficult such upgrading can be in practice. Opponents of HS2 are rightly concerned about costs and it is vital that taxpayers get the best value for their investment, so it should be a great concern to us all that the estimated cost of electrifying the Great Western main line has more than trebled, from £540 million in 2011 to more than £1.7 billion today, and the price is still rising. As Lord Adonis has said, it is like performing open heart surgery on a Victorian railway. Let there be no mistake: tracks may have been relayed and signals may have been upgraded since the Victorian railways were put down, but almost all our alignments are inherited from an age of slower traction, and almost 200 years later they have given us compromises.
It may be asked, “What is the alternative to HS2?” The truth is that the alternative, if it can be called that, is to prioritise the needs of one passenger against another. It is to make fast trains compete with commuter and freight services, and to spend even greater sums to extract diminishing returns from our eccentric and increasingly sclerotic network. To my mind, that is no alternative at all. It would lead to a meaner, less socially accessible and more London-centric railway. We urgently need new capacity and HS2 is the right project to provide it.
A number of concerns have been raised, both outside and inside this House. Much has been said about the project’s costs and it is certainly true that there was a loss of focus on costs after the election. That is why Labour successfully amended the High Speed Rail (Preparation) Act 2013 to enforce a much tougher scrutiny regime around the project’s budget. I will add that after the investment in High Speed 1, in Crossrail, in Thameslink and in Reading station, HS2 is a welcome commitment to building world-class infrastructure in the midlands and the north, and not just in London and the south-east.
Lilian Greenwood
I will not give way, because I have such limited time and I want the Minister to be able to respond to points.
We cannot and should not ignore environmental concerns, and I am grateful for the briefings and constructive dialogue that I have had with groups such as the Campaign to Protect Rural England and the Woodland Trust. Unlike the current Mayor of London, we do not dismiss legitimate environmental concerns raised by people who live along the proposed route of HS2, and we want the environmental benefits of HS2 to be enhanced through an early commitment to decarbonising the electricity market. We also want to ensure that the concerns of community groups are looked at, and that disruption is mitigated wherever possible.
Infrastructure Bill [Lords]
Helen Jones Excerpts(9 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Amber Rudd
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
I will address new clause 7 on environmental impact assessments—EIAs—and new clause 19 and its various themes in turn. The Government share the desire expressed in new clause 7 and new clause 19(a) to ensure that the public are made fully aware of issues raised in EIAs before a planning application is submitted, and I can assure Members that this is the case. The comprehensive requirements for planning applications for which there is an environmental statement are already set out in article 13 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010, which requires that the environmental statement be publicised before a local planning authority can determine an application. Planning authorities are already required to ensure that mineral developments will not have unacceptable adverse impacts on the environment. Where a development is likely to have a significant effect, an EIA is required. If any significant environmental effects are identified that cannot be mitigated, planning permission can be refused.
This approach works well in practice and is consistent with our European obligations. It ensures that an EIA, which involves substantial work often taking up to a year to develop, is undertaken only where it adds value. However, the Government understand the need to build public confidence in the shale sector. We therefore welcome the reassurance provided by the industry’s public commitment to carry out EIAs for all exploration wells that involve hydraulic fracturing. The industry has made a further commitment to produce an annual report listing the shale sites that have produced an EIA.
Amber Rudd
I am going to make some progress. I will give way again before the end of my comments, but I am conscious that the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) might want to address some of the points that I have raised.
New clause 19(b) and amendment 1 are concerned with the inspection of wells. The Health and Safety Executive is the independent regulator. Its specialist inspectors assess operators’ well notifications and weekly operations reports throughout well construction. Final consent for drilling operations rests with the Department of Energy and Climate Change, which will check that the relevant environmental agencies and the HSE have no objections before giving consent.
Health and safety legislation in the UK requires all well activities to be reviewed by an independent well examiner. There is an important principle that it is the well operator who retains responsibility for preventing any unplanned release of fluids. It is right that that fundamental duty rests with those who create the risk. The proposal that the HSE should approve each well could remove that responsibility. Rather than give a one-off approval, as is suggested in amendment 1, the HSE currently takes a lifecycle approach and can intervene at any time.
Helen Jones
Earlier, the Minister seemed to ask the House to rely on an order and on a commitment by the industry, rather than on putting the matter into primary legislation. If she agrees with what is in new clause 6, what is her objection to having it in the Bill?
Amber Rudd
The hon. Lady raises an interesting point. There is a lot that can be considered in primary legislation, but there is also a place for secondary legislation. We have decided that what is in primary legislation is sufficient.
I reassure Members that each shale site will still be inspected by the Health and Safety Executive during the exploration phase. I have agreed with the HSE that it will publish information for each visit to a shale site in its assessments.
Mr Yeo
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that extremely pertinent point.
We have probably all received a great many e-mails on the trespass issue. It is worth pointing out that the coal industry has enjoyed such a right for generations, and there seems to be no reason why it should not be extended to the gas industry.
Infrastructure Bill [Lords]
Helen Jones Excerpts(9 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hayes
As the hon. Lady suggests, the kind of future that I anticipate is very different from the one that she sees, for my kind of future is ambitious for Britain and virtuous in its intent; I am not sure that that is true of hers. I do not mean to be unkind in any way. However, as I said, I will come to invasive species by those that are apparently ornamental when they first arrive but turn out to be nothing but a nuisance.
Hon. Members will see a virtuous pattern that demonstrates my and the Government’s unrelenting commitment to delivering better infrastructure. At the heart of the autumn statement made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor last week was the biggest and most far-reaching roads programme in decades, with over 100 improvements to our major roads. As the House knows, that extra capacity will be underpinned by £15 billion of investment. Better infrastructure means more jobs, more opportunities and more growth. Those things will ultimately help to build a better future, drive down the deficit and inspire our people.
On taking office, we produced the first ever national infrastructure plan. We have made big calls on HS2, on Crossrail—the biggest construction project in Europe—and on shale gas exploration. We have got Britain building, with over 500,000 new homes built since April 2010.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
The broad sunlit uplands that the Minister is describing mean absolutely nothing to people in my constituency threatened with the untried technology of fracking without sufficient safeguards, which would wreck many of our villages and suburbs. Does he think that that is all right because it is going to happen in what his noble Friend Lord Howell calls the “desolate” north?
Richard Burden
I am grateful to the Minister. I am sure we can pursue and discuss the matter in Committee if the Bill gets that far.
My final point—perhaps the Minister has reassuring words on this—is whether the new agency will have adequate accountability, which the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) mentioned. Passenger Focus will be renamed Transport Focus because it will have a responsibility for roads as well as for rail and bus. Why is there still a silo mentality on the Office of the Rail Regulator, even though it will have a monitoring role? After pressure from the Opposition in the other place to give the new body more powers, it cannot be a regulator of roads. In the Bill, Transport Focus can represent only people who use strategic roads—it will not represent pedestrians or cyclists who use local roads, or motorists who are frustrated with conditions on local roads. I hope we can look at that if the Bill gets as far as Committee. With the recent ruling on the UK’s air quality infraction, should not a watchdog consider the environmental impact of any new company?
What about the Minister’s accountability to Parliament? Will hon. Members be able to table parliamentary questions and have proper debates on roads, whether in the Chamber or in Westminster Hall, or will we get letters from the chief executive of the new body instead? The chief executive of the Highways Agency has said that the reform will enable it to “set its own destiny”. The public depend on roads for daily life, so is that what we want? We will want to look at that closely in Committee if the Bill gets that far, and I hope the Minister reflects on it.
The Opposition support the extension of powers for the British Transport police to obtain driver information and take enforcement action outside the railways. That proposal was tabled by Lord Faulkner in the other place, with the Opposition’s support. It is an absurd situation when trained and effective British Transport police officers have to ask permission to take enforcement action on land outside railway jurisdiction. That makes no sense to the public. I hope the Minister will comment, today or later, on how that relates to the Smith commission recommendation that the British Transport police should be devolved.
The Opposition support a proper control regime for invasive non-native species, but we do not believe the Bill is fit for purpose. After the badger cull chaos, the Government listened to pressure from animal rights campaigners, wildlife groups, the National Farmers Union and Labour, and it is good that they included animal welfare protections in the regime. However, although there are three distinct categories of species in the Bill—native, former native and non-native—the definitions still seem problematic. We expect the Government to look at the EU habitats directive for those definitions, and will seek assurances that specific species such as the beaver will be given legal protection.
The Bill also includes a number of changes to the planning regime, none of which seem to go anywhere near addressing the housing crisis facing Britain today. Effective and efficient planning is vital, and we will support sensible changes to deliver a timely planning system, especially for nationally significant infrastructure projects. We want the Bill to define what the public can expect from garden cities in terms of high-quality design and sustainability for strong and inclusive communities for the future. My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham will expand on that point later, say why the Bill fails to ensure that building standards reduce CO2 sufficiently, and explain our position on deemed discharge, land transfers to the Homes and Communities Agency, and the Land Registry. Suffice it to say that a trend seems to be emerging with the Government’s Land Registry reforms, which still seem rather confused, and they appear to have made a U-turn on putting those at arm’s length. Perhaps the most glaring omission on housing and land use is the fact that the Bill contains no acknowledgment of the housing crisis our country faces, of what the Lyons review said, or that Labour is right to call for ambitious reforms and 200,000 extra homes to be built a year. This Bill is a far cry from that.
Part 5 sets out a number of provisions on energy. Getting energy policy right is critical to our economy and vital to enable all infrastructure sectors to function. It is therefore a shame that the Bill contains no ambitious commitment or strategy to ensure that the UK will meet growing demand in a sustainable way. The Bill sets out a new community right for a stake in renewable energy schemes—that is fine, although we do not think it goes far enough—and it is good that it implements Wood review proposals for increasing oil and gas extraction, which have cross-party support. However, the issue that I am sure generates the most interest, both inside and outside the House, is in clauses 38 to 43 on underground access to shale and geothermal energy—there have already been questions on that.
Helen Jones
Is my hon. Friend aware that in constituencies such as mine people are concerned not only that there are no adequate safeguards in the Bill, but that even the Government’s minor concessions, such as the requirement on companies to notify people of their right to land use and of the payments that can be made, will be reviewed after five years? Does that indicate that the Government are not serious about putting sufficient statutory protections in place?
Richard Burden
My hon. Friend makes an important point that was repeated in the other place and if the Bill gets to Committee, and we will be seeking a much more robust regulatory environment. My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) said that securing public confidence is not just important to us as parliamentarians when representing our constituents, but it is also important to the industry, which needs public concern about this issue like a hole in the head. If questions are to be answered they should be answered, and we should have transparency and a proper regulatory regime.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Stephen Williams)
This has been a wide-ranging debate, which is entirely appropriate for a very wide-ranging Bill that spans three Departments and several Government agencies. Between us on the Front Benches we have heard from 25 colleagues, so I hope the House will understand that I cannot respond to every point raised in the time I have available. I will focus on the main points that have been raised on roads, zero-carbon homes and the energy provisions.
On reform to our national road network, the upkeep of our road network is vital for the economy. That is why the Government are investing more than £6 billion in this Parliament, and £12 billion in the next, on highways maintenance for strategic and local roads—enough to resurface 80% of the national road network and fill 19 million potholes a year on local roads. One of the provisions is to convert the Highways Agency into a company that is wholly owned by the Government. Contrary to several observations that have been made, for example by the hon. Members for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), there is absolutely no intention that the new highways company will be privatised. In response to the question put by the hon. Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods), that applies to the Land Registry, too. The reforms to the Land Registry are necessary to bring local land charges into the 21st century and digitise 348 card indexes around the country. There is absolutely no intention to fatten up either company for privatisation.
Helen Jones
Many of us remember the Government saying that they had no intention of raising VAT either. Would the Minister like to give us a cast-iron guarantee that this wholly owned company will not be privatised by this Government in the future?
High Speed 2 (Warrington)
Helen Jones Excerpts(9 years, 8 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) and to the Minister for allowing me to participate in this debate, not least because I applied for it and somehow it ended up in his name—strange are the ways of the Table Office. Nevertheless, we are both here because although we may have political differences on a number of issues, even perhaps on some aspects of HS2, we are united in the belief that this initial proposed route around Warrington is both bad for the town and, increasingly, economically unjustifiable.
In the time allowed to me, I cannot deal with every issue, but this route will inflict huge disturbance and environmental damage on my constituency. It is already inflicting housing blight and it will, I believe, lead to economic damage in the villages affected, rather than prosperity. All of that arises from the perverse decision to send the route to join the west coast main line north of Warrington, rather than north of Crewe. I think the case for that has to come under increasing scrutiny, particularly in view of the damage it will inflict, and I do not believe that the figures stack up. In that respect, I am very grateful to my constituent, Mr Alan Debenham, for the detailed work he has done on the figures, and to the Culcheth and District Rail Action Group and the Rixton-with-Glazebrook HS2 Action Group for the information that they have supplied to me.
The spur, as we call it, is estimated to cost about £1 billion. Originally, in 2013, HS2 Ltd said that it would cost £800 million, as opposed to the £750 million cost of joining the west coast line north of Crewe. In fact, even those figures need to be scrutinised carefully, because that is a cost of £22.9 million per kilometre. That is only 28.6% of the average cost of the line elsewhere, despite the fact that a viaduct has to be built over the ship canal, as well as a new link at Lymm and bridges over the motorways. It is hardly believable. Mr Debenham has estimated that even if we take out the cost of building new stations on the line elsewhere and tunnels, it still only comes out at 40% of the average cost of building the rest of the line. I urge the Minister to scrutinise those figures very carefully indeed.
Attempts to get more details on the economic cost of the line have failed, but it is very clear from parliamentary answers to me that none of the case takes into account the economic cost to the villages around Warrington. For some, that is quite severe. The line will go through the Taylor business park, which is actually in the parish of Croft but just outside Culcheth, with a loss of 500 jobs. There will be a consequent loss of jobs among businesses in Culcheth that depend on trade from the business park, and even more jobs will be lost, because three of the main routes out of the village—the routes that lead into Warrington—are going to have to be closed during construction.
We saw recently what happened when only one route was closed: businesses lost an awful lot of trade and some closed during and after the closure of the road. The Minister has to understand that businesses in Culcheth not only serve the village, but attract a lot of people from outside to do their shopping or to come and eat there. My two favourite eateries, the Raj and the China Rose, for instance, attract people from outside the village as well as a clientele from within it. The Black Swan in Hollins Green, which is an excellent pub, if the Minister is ever passing, brings people into the village because of events that it puts on, such as farmers’ markets. The estimate for the loss of business rates from the business park is more than £635,000 per annum. The economic loss to Culcheth, including lost salaries and wages, is estimated at £10.2 million per annum. None of those are included in the costings for the line.
The environmental impact is also very serious. Rixton-with-Glazebrook will see a big viaduct and raised embankments going through the villages, cutting one half of the parish off from the other. The village of Hollins Green, which is an ancient village, will be dominated by the viaduct, and the network of footpaths around Hollins Green will be destroyed. They, too, bring people in from outside the village. I well remember opening—if you can open them, Mr Hollobone—the boards that first set up the maps for those. The Culcheth linear park will be destroyed. Ironically, in the consultation, it is down as a “dismantled railway” line—well, it used to be, but it is not now. It is a park with plant and tree conservation programmes, access for the disabled, and routes for walkers and riders. Those facilities cannot be replicated elsewhere in the village, and there is no attempt to calculate the cost to public health and the consequent cost to the public purse from getting rid of these facilities. It is ironic that at a time that we are all being encouraged to walk more, ways of doing that around the area will be destroyed.
I also urge the Minister to look carefully at the idea of building a big viaduct in an area of high winds. The Thelwall viaduct on the M6 frequently has speed limits on it and sometimes has to be closed because of the high winds in the area. No one seems to have taken account of that in the engineering.
Most serious of all is the blight on property that is now affecting the villages. Parliamentary answers that I have received said blithely that there would be 21 properties demolished, only four of which would be residential, and three would be at risk of demolition. In fact, the situation is much worse than that. In Rixton-with-Glazebrook, 505 properties will be within 500 metres of the line. If the Minister knows anyone who wants to buy a house in a village with a great big viaduct going through it, I am sure that people will be delighted to hear from him. In Culcheth, the total is 947 properties. Many of those do not qualify for the exceptional hardship scheme. They are not owned by wealthy people, but by people who have struggled and sacrificed to buy their own home, and who now see buyers walking away. We also see stories of people being refused mortgages because of the uncertainty about the route. In total, if we look at the PricewaterhouseCoopers report on the property bond and the loss of values, it is estimated that even a 10% drop in property prices in Culcheth wipes £23 million off the value of property in the area, and that is at today’s prices.
As one gentleman said to me, there might be a point if we were gaining elsewhere—it happened to be someone who lived very close to the proposed line—but we are not. This spur, as the hon. Member for Warrington South has shown, does not actually seem to benefit anyone. In fact, building the line in that way disadvantages the whole of the west of the region, because it takes the HS2 line away from it, and I think Liverpool is already making its case about that. I admire Manchester’s lobbying skills, but the region is not all about Manchester. We need to ensure that other places benefit as well.
The Minister and his colleagues have a chance to put this right, because the Higgins report proposes a transport hub at Crewe, and part of the reason for not joining the line north of Crewe was the work that would have to be done to Crewe station. If it is being done anyway, he has a real chance to look again at these proposals to ensure that we get the line joining the west coast main line north of Crewe and that that line is upgraded, so that then we can connect to Liverpool, Warrington and many of the other towns and cities around the route as well. If he does that, he will not only be avoiding a loss of habitat, environmental destruction and economic problems in my constituency, but providing a better service to the region as a whole and saving the Government probably £1 billion and, as I have said to my colleagues, any future Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer £1 billion as well, so I hope that he does the right thing and gets it right for Warrington.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) on applying for this debate and my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) on speaking first in it. For Warrington, there is no north-south divide as far as HS2 is concerned, but HS2 itself does address the very big issue of the north-south divide as far as our country is concerned. There is very good cross-party agreement on that point, but I will not rehearse the arguments, as they have already been well rehearsed on the Floor of the House and in Committee.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has announced details of the route for phase 2 of HS2, to Leeds and Manchester, and with intermediate stations at Manchester airport, the east midlands and Sheffield. We have consulted on that route and received more than 10,000 responses, including one from my hon. Friend, all of which are being carefully analysed. Let me be clear. No decisions have yet been taken on the route or station options. The Secretary of State has committed to respond to the phase 2 consultation by the end of the year, and that remains his intention. He will make an announcement in the autumn.
My hon. Friend has expressed concerns, as has the hon. Lady, that Warrington will lose out from HS2. I understand and share his view that we should continue to develop our understanding of the local economic impacts of HS2. Although we do not have a full estimate of the economic benefits of the section of the high-speed line that is limited to the Warrington area, I can tell him that under our current plans, Warrington will, under phase 1, be served by high-speed trains running on the dedicated HS2 line to Handsacre and then on the classic rail network to Warrington Bank Quay from day one of HS2 starting operations.
Helen Jones
The Minister has been very generous, but may I point out to him that Warrington already has one train an hour both to Scotland and to London? Under these proposals, it may not get that many services.
Mr Goodwill
Certainly the intention is to have comparable or better services following HS2, but given that we are in the middle of the consultation, things may well start to gel a little more before the end of the year.
When phase 2 opens, it will be possible to travel more quickly—by 30 minutes—between London and Warrington; and from 2036, three years after phase 2 opens, the transport user benefits to the region of trips starting in the north-west will be equivalent to roughly £342 million every year. HS2 Ltd’s analysis of the mainline connection at Golborne suggests that it could provide benefits in the order of £1.2 billion and revenue of about £600 million. Also, HS2 will free up space for additional commuter, regional and freight services on our main north-south lines, including the west coast main line. Passengers and businesses in Warrington will be well placed to take advantage of those benefits.
I know that my hon. Friend is concerned about the impact on local and regional services from Warrington and the potential loss of direct services to London. Under the train service specification that we have published for HS2, there will be one train an hour between London and Warrington. The TSS is not a train service proposal as such, but has merely been adopted for demand-modelling purposes as part of the economic case for HS2.
The train service pattern across the rail network that will operate from the launch of high-speed services in 2026 will be developed iteratively over the next decade and beyond, in consultation with key stakeholders. It is too early to make detailed commitments about how the rail network will operate when HS2 services start, but one of the key aims for future service patterns is that all towns or cities that currently have a direct service to London will retain broadly comparable or better services once HS2 is completed.
Regarding the loss of Taylor business park and the damaging economic impact of HS2, I note what my hon. Friend and the hon. Lady have said about the potential effect on that business park. We are mindful of the impacts that HS2 could have on businesses, and HS2 Ltd will work with local stakeholders to ensure that unwanted impacts are kept to a minimum, including through potential route refinements where required. We have received many representations about the impact of our proposals on the Taylor business park and are considering them carefully alongside other consultation responses.
Our consultation is a genuine attempt to learn more about the proposed route’s likely impacts and benefits, and there is potential for it to change as a result of the consultation. Indeed, this afternoon’s debate is an important part of the dialogue that is taking place between Ministers and HS2 on one side and local representatives and residents on the other. I hope that we can bridge that divide. My goal is to have everyone on the same side if possible.
From the point at which a confirmed route was announced, we began a detailed assessment of its impact and we will seek to mitigate the most adverse impacts, including visual intrusion and noise, through our design work. In doing so, we will keep local community representatives informed of our plans and seek their input on how to achieve the best outcomes for local people. It is worth remembering that in order to obtain the powers needed to build the railway, via a further hybrid Bill, we will need to demonstrate that we have done all that we reasonably could to understand and manage its impacts.
My hon. Friend mentioned Scotland. He is absolutely right. No decisions have been taken yet on whether there will be a high-speed link to Scotland. A bilateral working group with the Scottish Government is working to consider options for improving rail links to Scotland. The results will be announced in due course. I think that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer put his oar in as well, with a suggestion that HS3 might be an east-west link connecting Yorkshire to Lancashire. I can understand why people might want to travel from Lancashire to Yorkshire but possibly not in the opposite direction.
Mr Goodwill
My hon. Friend makes a very valid point indeed, and certainly that is one of the points that we are taking into consideration.
In terms of the additional station at Crewe or Warrington Bank Quay, the consultation exercise was designed to bring in a range of ideas, and I welcome the responses that we have received, including those from the hon. Members who have spoken today. I can confirm that we are carefully considering the response from my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South alongside those from other consultees. He will be aware that Sir David Higgins, the chairman of HS2 Ltd, has recommended that to deliver benefits to the north more quickly, we could accelerate the building of the line to Crewe before the rest of phase 2 and build a new station to receive HS2 services from 2027. We can see potential benefits from doing that, but to allow us to consider it fully, the Secretary of State has asked HS2 Ltd to undertake more detailed work, so that we can consider the suggestion very carefully, as part of the response that he will make to the phase 2 consultation later this year.
In conclusion, we and HS2 Ltd are working hard to implement a scheme that will not only bring the widest possible benefits to the country, but help to bring all those who would be affected together. HS2 Ltd has been taking forward an extensive engagement programme in Warrington involving local councillors, action groups and other stakeholders in the area. That includes briefing sessions for elected members at Warrington town hall. I understand that my hon. Friend attended the last of those sessions in June. Was the hon. Lady there as well?
Mr Goodwill
She was. That engagement will continue as we develop our plans for HS2. The Government are keen to get as many views as possible to ensure that the phase 2 route of HS2 will be the best that it can be. We want, as far as possible, to reduce the impacts on people and the environment, so that not only will the towns and cities in the midlands and the north get the connections that they need to thrive, but HS2 will be taken forward in such a way that it realises the full benefits of the scheme for the country as a whole.
High-speed Rail
Helen Jones Excerpts(10 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
Despite the reports, it remains the case that the initial preferred route for the second part of HS2 will devastate parts of Warrington, with the loss of businesses and jobs, and will possibly give us a worse service in the long run. Does not the proposal of a regional hub at Crewe give more impetus to the suggestion by Warrington borough council and others of a preferred route that would be of huge benefit to the western part of the region?
Mr McLoughlin
As I have said, a period of consultation is going on and I am listening to the representations. No firm decision has yet been taken. The Higgins report states what Sir David believes would be the best way forward at the moment. I will certainly consider that, but I will also consider other recommendations and representations.
High Speed Rail
Helen Jones Excerpts(11 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr McLoughlin
When HS2 is fully up and built, it will have a major impact on the north and will help dramatically to rebalance the economy, which is so desperately needed. I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s support.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
Is the Secretary of State aware that there is great concern in Warrington because it will not get an HS2 station? Warrington has developed its economy based on its good transport links, but we are unsure whether trains running on the existing line from Crewe will be sufficient. There is also concern that the line that will join the west coast main line at Wigan goes through parts of my constituency along a linear park, so we get the disruption without the benefits. Will he undertake to work with Warrington borough council and other interested parties to consider alternatives so that Warrington can benefit from HS2?
Mr McLoughlin
Of course, I am prepared to do that and I am sure that Warrington council will want to take part in the consultation I announced today. Warrington will be served in the same way as Liverpool and other areas, such as Wigan, but of course I will consider the hon. Lady’s representations. I want to make it clear that today is the start of the process, not the end. It is, however, the start of a very important and beneficial process for the United Kingdom.