Thursday Volume 507 18 March 2010 No. 60 HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) Thursday 18 March 2010 £5·00 © Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2010 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Parliamentary Click-Use Licence, available online through the Office of Public Sector Information website at www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/ Enquiries to the Office of Public Sector Information, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU; e-mail: [email protected] 951 18 MARCH 2010 952 the autumn. In fact, there was a public meeting in the House of Commons west midlands earlier this week. I will make sure that my hon. Friend is kept abreast of developments and Thursday 18 March 2010 that his views about the need to consult as many people as possible are taken on board before the autumn consultation begins. The House met at half-past Ten o’clock Jeremy Wright (Rugby and Kenilworth) (Con): As PRAYERS the Minister knows, the proposed line would run right through my constituency, including Burton Green, which the hon. Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) [MR.SPEAKER in the Chair] mentioned. In respect of the impact of the construction work, may I ask that information be made available on BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS two specific matters? First, will there need to be any extra land-take in order to complete the construction LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES BILL [LORDS] work? As the Minister will appreciate, the proposed line (BY ORDER) passes very close to residential properties in Burton Second Reading opposed and deferred until Thursday Green and elsewhere, and if people’s gardens are to be 25 March (Standing Order No. 20). affected, it would be helpful to know about that. Secondly, can he inform residents about any particular implications that may arise from the building of access shafts? Oral Answers to Questions Mr. Khan: The hon. Gentleman has raised very important issues, as he did the other day. On any potential extra land-take, he will be aware that the broadest width of TRANSPORT the area for the high speed rail will be about 25 metres, which is a lot, and the narrowest width will be 15 metres. The Minister of State was asked— We have asked High Speed 2 to go away and do further High Speed Rail work to minimise the disruption caused and to mitigate the effects on the constituents of the hon. Gentleman 1. Mr. Jim Cunningham (Coventry, South) (Lab): and other Members, and I will make sure he is kept What his most recent assessment is of the likely effects abreast of the progress we make. It is important that we on residents in the west midlands of the construction keep Members involved before the formal consultation works associated with the establishment of high-speed begins, and that we minimise any blight caused to their rail links. [322748] constituents. I give the hon. Gentleman an undertaking to do just that. The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr. Sadiq Khan): We would seek to minimise the effects of construction wherever possible. Initial decisions Mr. Ken Purchase (Wolverhampton, North-East) (Lab/ on whether to build a high-speed line and what route Co-op): We who live in the region welcome this that line should take will be taken in the light of the development. Although we are, of course, concerned autumn 2010 consultation. Thereafter, the full effects about the environmental impact, the Minister should and any associated mitigation measures would be subject give priority to highlighting the economic development to an environmental impact assessment as part of the opportunities that will arise from the line. Will he also hybrid Bill process, which would itself be subject to ensure that we develop the line in such a way that all further public scrutiny. those towns and cities just north of Birmingham do not miss out on what is an once-in-a-lifetime economic Mr. Cunningham: I thank my hon. Friend for that opportunity? answer. While I would welcome a high-speed rail line through the midlands because of the benefits it would bring, there is a concern about the corridor between Mr. Khan: My hon. Friend will be pleased to know Coventry and Warwickshire, particularly in the Burton that the preferred route will lead to benefits not only for Green area. Can my hon. Friend give an assurance that his neck of the woods, but for other parts of the there will be both adequate public consultation as soon country, as it will go to both Manchester and Leeds. In as possible so that residents’ views are taken into the construction phase, more than 10,000 jobs will be consideration, and a realistic impact study undertaken created, and there will be 2,000 permanent jobs. The of the possible effects in the area? Let me conclude, economic benefits to our country will be enormous. however, by repeating that I would welcome this scheme That is, of course, why my hon. Friend has been one of and the benefits it would bring, especially given that the the keenest advocates of High Speed 2. west midlands unemployment rate is 10 per cent. and its manufacturing base has been eroded. That link would Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire) (Con): be a shot in the arm for the region. Will the Minister bear it in mind that during my time in Mr. Khan: My hon. Friend has been a keen advocate the House the residents of South Staffordshire have had of High Speed 2, but he has also been keen to ensure their lives disrupted by the building of three motorways? that we are aware of some of the downsides of a Will he take that carefully into account and try to high-speed line. Consultations with local residents have ensure that there is the minimum possible disruption already begun in advance of the formal consultation in from this welcome development? 953 Oral Answers18 MARCH 2010 Oral Answers 954 Mr. Khan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. lighting on the motorways. Local authorities will want We have been keen to try to learn the lessons from to consider, in the light of their local circumstances, previous mass infrastructure projects—not only massive developing policies that can address light pollution and motorway projects, but High Speed 1. Fifty per cent. of its impact on the night sky, as well as parallel policies, the preferred route will be either along existing transport such as those aimed at carbon reduction, that might corridors next to motorways, or next to used or disused drive them to turn off or dim their highway lighting. rail lines. That leaves 50 per cent. on virgin land. We need to make sure we learn the lessons and learn from New Rolling Stock previous mistakes, in order to minimise the disruption caused to the constituents of the hon. Gentleman and 3. John Howell (Henley) (Con): What plans he has for those of many more Members in other parts of the the procurement of new rolling stock in the next five country. years; and if he will make a statement. [322750] Mr. Brian Jenkins (Tamworth) (Lab): My constituents The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport will be affected by this track. They have just had to go (Chris Mole): The Department for Transport’s plans through the four-tracking of the west coast line. That focus on the steps that need to be taken to deliver caused disruption with no benefit to the people in my additional capacity specified in the high-level output part of the world. What can the Minister say to two of specification for the period 2009 to 2014 and the my constituents who have now found out via the media requirements to achieve its longer-term aspirations. that their property will be knocked down as it is on the permanent way for the building of this new line, when John Howell: The Association of Train Operating they were, in fact, actively seeking to downsize for Companies has complained about the level of micro- health reasons? What can the Minister offer them apart management and of overregulation by the Department from a consultation for the next six months? Can we for Transport in relation to the rolling stock. How is the afford to buy these people out, who need get off the Minister taking those complaints into account? Will we permanent way? see some scaling back of the Government’s role, for which we have long argued? Mr. Khan: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s question. First, I am happy to meet him and his constituents to Chris Mole: It is the Department’s responsibility to discuss their concerns. Secondly, we have begun consultation ensure that we get rolling stock that is usable on the on an exceptional hardship scheme, over and above the long-term network. We develop proposals for additional statutory blight provisions for constituents such as those rolling stock in full consultation with the train operating he mentioned. Although I am confident that those two companies, which have, in the first instance, the immediate measures will deal with some of the concerns and they use for it. will mitigate the problems, I am afraid that they will not solve them altogether. I look forward to meeting him Mr. Clive Betts (Sheffield, Attercliffe) (Lab): I am and his constituents to try to address the genuine problems sure my hon. Friend is aware that proposals to improve that he has raised. the Sheffield to Manchester line are very welcome for the future. Of immediate concern, however, is the East Light Pollution Midlands Trains service between Norwich and Liverpool, because at peak periods the service between Sheffield 2.