Of course, HS2 is not coming to Scotland at this stage. I would be happy to see something being built from the north, and, of course, if we wanted to start in Edinburgh I would be happy to see that. HS2 will have an advantage for Scotland and Edinburgh. Even with the first phase, journey speeds will be cut by half an hour, and they will be cut by more subsequently. That is

28 Apr 2014 : Column 638

important because a city such as Edinburgh wants business and investment. We want people to come to a place where there is development space and a well-educated work force that is ready to be employed. We want to encourage those people to think that they can make those fast links with the rest of the UK and, of course, with London. I would much prefer that linkage to be by train, not by plane, and to stop the unnecessary environmental damage that is caused to a small country such as the UK by people taking internal flights.

There is a strong economic advantage to my city and to Scotland in going ahead with this project. It is not necessarily perfect, but if we are not careful we will end up in the position that we have been in far too often before, when, in the face of all the argumentation, people get cold feet, they retreat, and another 20 years go by before another set of politicians starts to ask why the country does not have a high-speed rail network.

9.36 pm

Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con): Like my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat), I have taken part in a number of lively debates on this issue, and there is a danger of repeating what many people have already said. We have heard that demand for long-distance rail has doubled. The lines on the west coast in particular are busy, but the east coast will soon catch up. I know from personal experience that the situation is bad enough at peak times now and is set to get much worse. Yes, we can tinker with the system again, or make the minor adjustments that we have seen, but that is expensive and will not solve the long-term problems. We need to be bold and ambitious.

Today, I want to focus on the needs of my city of Leeds and the wider northern economy. I realise that this debate is about phase 1, but without that we will not get up to my city. HS2 really must connect to Leeds. The Government’s commitment is critical to the exciting plans that the city and the wider city region have to boost our local economy. Not only will this provide much needed greater capacity in our rail network, but it will help us to reshape the economic geography, be a catalyst for regeneration across the city, and provide a real boost for jobs and skills.

I note that the Secretary of State did not mention in his speech that Leeds is bidding for the HS2 academy, so may I remind him that there is another bid from a great city in the north?

Mr McLoughlin: I am well aware that many cities are bidding, and I just mentioned a few. I am very sorry to have missed out my hon. Friend’s.

Stuart Andrew: Apology accepted.

I might be biased, but Leeds is an outstanding city. It is a major UK business centre and one of the best places in Europe to locate a business. It has one of the most diverse economies of the many UK centres that we have, which has helped it to survive and recover from many of the recessions that we have experienced—better, in fact, than many of the business centres in other European countries.

Between 2001 and 2008, Leeds enjoyed the fastest jobs growth of all the core cities. It is no coincidence that at the same time it has seen rail passenger numbers grow by 90%—again, the highest growth—and Leeds

28 Apr 2014 : Column 639

station is now the busiest station in the north, clearly demonstrating that good links bring along a good economy. Leeds is determined to build on its success and wants to be a brand new kind of city; a city at the heart of a city region that is the second largest economy in the UK with 106,000 businesses, the largest manufacturing base in the UK and eight universities. Bringing HS2 to Leeds and locating the new station on its south bank will help it to realise that goal, creating the opportunities that we need for growth and development on an unprecedented scale.

The regeneration of Leeds’ south bank covers 136 hectares—60 acres of land that is prime for development—and has the potential to deliver more than 10,000 jobs for the city. It will create a 3.5 hectare city centre park and the jobs that young people growing up in the city need. It will add to what is an already exciting part of south Leeds, which includes the HQs of Asda, Eddisons and aql and cultural attractions such as the Royal Armouries, and will provide homes for local people. It will also help to generate a growing economy across the city region and across the north as it will link into the additional investment that we are already seeing in rail infrastructure across the north of England. It will help to improve connectivity, creating a powerful non-London economic zone and help us truly to rebalance our economy. HS2 will bring Leeds within far faster reach of Sheffield City Region, the Derby, Derbyshire, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire local enterprise partnership, Birmingham and, of course, London. All that, along with east coast connectivity, provides us with a real chance to reshape the economy of the north.

Today, the Leeds economy is worth some £18 billion and has grown almost 40% over the past decade. There are 25,000 businesses in the city alone, which has the highest ratio of private to public sector jobs of all major cities bar London. It has also been resilient in these difficult times. Employment is up 11,000 since 2011. In 2013, we saw the opening of the £350 million Trinity retail centre. A new arena opened this year, which will also see the start of the new Victoria Gate development that will bring John Lewis to the city. The prospect of HS2 has seen Leeds and Manchester working together to set an ambitious growth strategy.

All that is incredibly important, but I am worried that it could all be at risk if we do not get our north-south connection working effectively. We need to ensure that we face the creeping problem of capacity. We need to connect our major cities so that they can do business with each other. We need a modern line that deals effectively with the problem, and not the usual make-do approach. We need a transport system that can cope and complement, and for me, HS2 is it. Let us be ambitious, let us spread the wealth, let us create the opportunity, and let us get HS2 going.

9.42 pm

Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con): Since I last spoke on HS2, the project continues to be a source of considerable controversy, as we have heard this afternoon. Feelings are running high in parts of my constituency, for although we have been able to welcome the plans for additional tunnelling, which will make a big difference to parts of Ealing, there remain communities in east Acton that will be seriously affected by the construction works around Old Oak Common.

28 Apr 2014 : Column 640

I should say straight away that I remain supportive of the principle of HS2. The country needs regular long-term planned infrastructure projects and this one is overdue. Parts of the current network are already over capacity and comparatively slow. It is also worth considering how factors such as modern transport networks affect our attractiveness to overseas business. Britain must continue—to borrow the phrase—to be open for business, and our trains have been under-invested in over the years.

I remain a committed opponent to a third runway at Heathrow and still believe that a modern rail network with increased capacity will reduce the reliance on air travel, especially on short domestic flights—although I should add that the unwelcome renewed speculation about expanding Heathrow does not help to reinforce that particular line of reasoning.

Broadly, I believe that HS2 is a timely investment in long-term planning for our transport network. I am, however, deeply disappointed about crucial aspects of the project as the details of the compensation arrangements become clearer and I must raise some serious concerns. The first is the lack of provision for the years of huge inconvenience to be suffered by residents near construction sites. In Acton, that would mean those living near Old Oak lane close by Old Oak Common. They face at least a decade of massive disruption and must be appropriately compensated. There are real concerns that some living in the area—already semi-cut off by railway lines—will be almost completely trapped by the huge construction works and will be unable easily to get out and about to shops, GPs, schools and the like due to heavy demands on the capacity of local roads. Alternatives, such as extra bus routes around the works, will have to be laid on and effective traffic management will be essential, but I suspect that even the best-laid alternative plans will not make up for the enormous upheaval to those living in the area.

I find it quite extraordinary that HS2 and its planners can take such a cavalier attitude towards those communities. My worries were hardly allayed by the company’s recent briefing on its compensation package proposals, which were actually made worse. There is no recognition of the problem. When asked at the meeting about those who are likely to suffer the worst impact in places such as east Acton and who need to move, HS2 claimed that the new transport links will make the properties in the area more desirable and valuable in future, so there will be no problem if the owners want to sell them on. If those properties make such desirable investments, I see no reason why they cannot be included in a voluntary purchase scheme. Also, I should point out that the area has a lot of elderly residents. For them it has been home for many years and they might not wish to move. The prospect of a vague increase in property value in around 15 years’ time as compensation for a decade of hardship is clearly not acceptable. For those who want to stick it out in intensely difficult circumstances, there should be recognition and recompense for the blight to their lives over a decade or more.

The second area where I feel the compensation proposals fall short is the difference between the urban and rural policies. I am sure that colleagues who represent urban constituencies will agree that we seem to be getting a comparatively bad deal. We need only look at the compensation briefing document to see how little there

28 Apr 2014 : Column 641

is on proposals for urban areas compared with the pages on the rural compensation proposals. That suggests an underlying assumption that, having chosen to live in a city, one becomes immune to noise and pollution and therefore less entitled to consideration for compensation. I accept that there are some different considerations, but this goes too far. One does not have to live in an area of outstanding natural beauty to be inconvenienced by a train depot appearing on one’s doorstep.

The omission from the scheme of some of my constituents who will so clearly be affected has caused me to question my support for the project. I am sure that I am not alone in feeling that we must get these details right before continuing. I will stay on side with the Government tonight, but I will need to see a change of heart on the compensation issues I have laid out if I am to stay on side during the Bill’s later stages.

9.47 pm

Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con): This debate is hugely important to the country, but the proposals put forward by the Government are of huge concern to many of my constituents who face the prospect of both phase 1 and phase 2 of HS2.

I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State say that he does not believe that those who have shown their concern are nimbys, because others have taken a rather different view, as he will know. If he looks at the report of proceedings in Westminster Hall on 31 March 2011, he will read some very disobliging comments about people concerned about HS2.

My constituents are not nimbys. They tell me that if the business case stacked up, if the mitigation was right and if the compensation on offer was fair, reasonable and quick, they would accept the proposals. They would not like them, but they would accept them in the national interest. The problem is that the business case does not stack up, the mitigations are not right and the compensation is not fair, reasonable or quick.

We have already heard concerns about the business case. I will not recapitulate them here, but suffice it to say that I am concerned that the connection between our vital airports does not seem to be there; the proposals for the funding do not appear to stack up; and the route around Birmingham goes west, not east, and therefore through virgin countryside rather along than existing transport corridors. In my judgment, the business case does not stack up.

Even if it did stack up, the mitigations in my part of the world are nowhere near adequate. I was pleased to hear from my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall) that in his constituency HS2 will be tunnelled. Mitigation in Tamworth extends to a few trees, except around the village of Hints, where the ancient woodland will be demolished to make way for the line. We will gain a few saplings, but we will lose a lot of ancient oaks, because HS2 will not build a cut-and-cover tunnel.

In Knox’s Grave lane and Flats lane, an innovative proposal from the residents has also been rejected so far. The local housing stock is so overcrowded in the community that there is nowhere for them to move to, so the compensation simply will not help them. They want to rebuild their homes nearby, but thus far, HS2

28 Apr 2014 : Column 642

has said no. All it has offered to those people is the prospect of living in caravans. That is a bitter twist of the knife for them to bear. Indeed, every mitigation proposal in my constituency—in Drayton Bassett, Swinfen, Hints and Flats lane—has been rejected by HS2.

The Secretary of State made great play of the compensation proposals that he has tabled. A couple of weeks ago, I listened to those proposals being adumbrated by the Under-Secretary of State, and they are an improvement, but the fact remains that not a single constituent of mine will benefit from those proposals. The village of Hints lies 400 metres away from the proposed route. In the past four years, not a single home has been sold in Hints, except four that have been sold to the state through the exceptional hardship scheme. The people in that village are blighted now: they cannot move, they are trapped and they have lost their liberty. The only way that we can get the property market moving in those places, so that people can realise their aspiration to move if they want to, is by introducing a property bond. I hope that the Secretary of State or the Select Committee, or a combination of the two, will accept the need for such a bond.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), in a passionate and personal speech, said that when we are building infrastructure, the needs and demands of the country must be addressed. We would all accept that, but the needs and demands of the people who are affected by the proposals that we are foisting on them also need to be properly and effectively met. It is my judgment that, although the Secretary of State has been solicitous and patient with me—I am grateful for his help and concern, and I trust they will continue—the proposals do not stack up. For that reason I shall, with regret, oppose the Government tonight.

9.52 pm

Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con): It is a great privilege to follow that extremely powerful speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher), with whom I agree entirely. I speak in favour of the reasoned amendment and against the Bill because of my strong reservations about the route alignment, the business case and the compensation arrangements. I do so with great regret, because it did not need to be like this. If the argument had always been about capacity, and a little more common sense had been in evidence over speed—we do not need trains travelling at the speeds proposed—we could have had a very different proposal that might have been much more acceptable to my constituents, even if the route had gone through my constituency, and to the country at large.

I fully accept the need to increase capacity, and sensible alternatives, including new lines, have been put forward and dismissed with too little consideration—contrary to what the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), who is no longer in his place, said earlier. I also accept the fragility of the existing network and that we need new, 21st-century lines, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) and others have argued, we should make much better use of the existing transport corridors, such as the M40 corridor through the Chilterns. I urge the Government to look at that argument again when they consider phase 2—as should the Committee on phase 1.

28 Apr 2014 : Column 643

I want to speak up for those who have opposed the work of HS2. Those people have spent their own time and money because they believe it is not in the interests of the country or of their communities. It is not that they do not want development. In my constituency, we already host the M6, which is being widened to allow the managed motorways scheme, and both branches of the west coast main line. Recently, we have had the four-tracking in the Trent valley and we will shortly see, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), the Norton Bridge flyover, which will bring four new train paths an hour on the west coast main line. Those projects have been accepted because they are in the national interest.

What my constituents do not accept is a line constructed with little regard for the communities that it splits and the landscape that it degrades. In my constituency, we have five communities that will be split, or very nearly so—Ingestre, Hopton, Yarlet, Marston and Great Haywood. Those affected are not, as some people say to me in e-mails, wealthy Range Rover drivers; many are people who invested their very limited lifetime savings into property that they see falling sharply in value or becoming unsaleable, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher) said. Very few of those currently blighted are receiving proper compensation. I am glad that the Secretary of State referred to better compensation being on offer. I would welcome that, but urge him to listen to what my hon. Friend the Member for Stone said earlier.

I will not go into the details of the business case, as others have done so, but I will mention two things. The cost, as far as I can see, excludes the cost of money—interest of several billion pounds over the course of the project. I would ask HS2 to tell me that I am wrong; so far it has not done so. I am also concerned about the lack of a sound business case for the west coast main line post-HS2. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) spoke powerfully about that. The case for HS2 depends on a fully functioning west coast main line continuing, yet to date I have seen no proper business case for it. Let us not forget that the west coast main line will lose much of its profitable business traffic. As we have heard, it will continue to require substantial maintenance and probably increasing public subsidy. Where is that to come from?

My constituents in Stafford willingly bear a substantial weight of national transport infrastructure—the M6 and two parts of the west coast main line—and they benefit from it, but they need to be convinced that an additional line will be built sensitively and sustainably. Regretfully, I believe that that is not the case with the proposal on the table.

9.56 pm

Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con): We have heard some very good speeches, some of which have been made with a great deal of passion and knowledge. It is not surprising that most of the speeches against this proposal were by Members representing constituencies affected by the line. We have also heard very good speeches praising it by Members representing Manchester and other great cities of the north.

I want to speak for other parts of the country that are not directly affected. I see that the Secretary of State is in his place. I am sure that Parliament will approve this

28 Apr 2014 : Column 644

line and it will go ahead, so I urge him not to forget other parts of the country. Some of us are concerned—we have not received enough reassurance on this point—that it will suck investment from the rural lines and commuter lines that the vast majority of our people are using. I am not just speaking for rural people in Lincolnshire, people standing on freezing platforms in Kent, or people trying to get suburban lines into Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool or wherever. We are worried about this vast project that is costing £50 billion, and that is just the start—we all know from Public Accounts Committee reports that we will be spending a lot more than that. I ask people to spare a thought for underinvestment in our rural lines.

When I intervened on the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), who was giving a passionate speech about services in London, I was met with incredulity when I said that if she tried to take a train from Gainsborough Central to Brigg and missed it, she would have to wait a whole week for the next one. How many times have I sat, or rather stood, on the platform at Market Rasen waiting for the single cattle truck plodding its way from Grimsby and Cleethorpes at 40 mph? Perhaps that is the maximum speed. If one is lucky enough to get on the train—it is very overcrowded and infrequent—one can get down to Newark. It takes me three and a half hours to drive to the middle of my constituency—that is fair enough—but if I go by train it also takes three and a half hours. On behalf of people who do not want to travel at vast speed to Birmingham and Manchester, we are making the valid point that there is also a case to be made for people who live elsewhere in our country. We have heard so much in the past about the need for speed, but interestingly we hear less and less about that.

I am worried that too much political authority appears to be invested in this project, which started with an idea by the previous Labour Government. I am a bit suspicious about the line running through so many Conservative constituencies, but I will leave that to one side—I am sure it was not meant maliciously. The project has been taken up by this Government, and so much political authority is now tied up in it. We started with the speed case, but it seems to many of us that that has been shot to pieces. We are now told that it is all about capacity, but so many other proposals—

10 pm

The debate stood adjourned (Standing Order No. 9(3)).

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 15),

That, at this day’s sitting, the Second Reading of the High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until 11.00pm.—(Harriett Baldwin.)

Question agreed to.

Debate resumed.

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Mrs Gillan: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I understand that some colleagues who live some way out of London have been encouraged to make their way home because of the tube strike this evening. Is the Chair able to offer any advice to colleagues so that they might be able to stay for the votes and proceedings, particularly when this House is sitting to such a late hour?

28 Apr 2014 : Column 645

Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing): The right hon. Lady makes her point very well, but she and the House will know that that is not a matter on which I can make any ruling whatsoever from the Chair.

Sir Edward Leigh: My speech is just like one of the train journeys from Market Rasen to London—it is a bit of a stopping service.

I was making the point about capacity. Frankly, this proposal would have got through without any controversy if railway economists had started by making a careful case for capacity and if we had considered things such as better signalling, reducing the number of first-class carriages and the M40 corridor. There are many other proposals for lines—the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) has proposed improving the service from Birmingham Snow Hill to London—but there is an element of suspicion among the general public, is there not, that this is now a political project that we have to proceed with at all costs. I am not sure that that is the best way to invest in the public infrastructure of the future. Surely the best way to make decisions is to base them on careful, transparent and open studies, and that is what I urge the Government to do.

10.2 pm

Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con): Mine is another voice from Lincolnshire, but I will give a slightly different emphasis to proceedings. Given that I am a member of the Transport Committee and chairman of the all-party group on rail and that I was a member of the High Speed Rail (Preparation) Bill Committee, I think I have heard more than my fair share of arguments to be able to assess the merits of the proposals. I will not repeat all the arguments in favour—the Secretary of State did that admirably earlier—but I will touch on one or two that seem most relevant.

It is simply not possible to mix high-speed services with slower stopping services and freight. Too often, the demands of the freight industry are ignored in this debate. My own constituency is home to the port of Immingham, where 25% of freight moved by rail starts or ends its journey. All the projections I have seen show a steady increase in freight traffic, which is vital to the continuing economic development of the nation and to my corner of northern Lincolnshire in particular. HS2 will benefit not just London and the cities on the route; without transport connections of the highest quality, the UK as a competitive nation will fall behind our competitors and it is the UK as a whole that would suffer.

Economic success is dependent on good-quality transport connections and regional connectivity. The hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) spoke earlier of Edward Watkin, one of the founders of the Great Central railway. Watkin was also instrumental, as a director of the Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire railway, in the development of Grimsby docks, the port of Immingham and the resort of Cleethorpes. Indeed, he is commemorated, as are all the directors of the MSLR and the Great Central, by street names in the Grimsby and Cleethorpes area.

GDP statistics show that English regional cities are currently underperforming compared with those in many western European countries. That is why the good transport links provided by the high-speed network—

28 Apr 2014 : Column 646

namely HS2—and the released capacity that such a network offers are essential to encourage prosperity and investment. It is not just the towns along the route that will benefit; there is no way that the potential increased demand to provide better services to areas such as my part of northern Lincolnshire—

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): Order. Just one second. There are a lot of private conversations, and I am struggling to hear. Like me, I am sure that other hon. Members in the House want to hear Martin Vickers.

Martin Vickers: The Prime Minister has made it clear that he wants the Humber estuary to become the renewables capital of the UK. That is the Government’s aim, but regular services not just to London but to other major cities are essential to achieving that.

During the past decade, passenger journeys have grown by 50% to almost l.5 billion a year, and that figure will be 2 billion journeys by 2020. As stated in the strategic case, once HS2 has been built, it is forecast to generate £59.8 billion in user benefits, as well as £13.3 billion in wider economic benefits. The HS2 project will create an instant market for construction and civil engineering jobs, and there will be a big opportunity in the manufacturing sector to design and build the rolling stock. Tata Steel’s Scunthorpe works is heavily dependent on the production of rail track. If the Scunthorpe plant is successful in obtaining orders for the project, the jobs of the 250 of my constituents who work there will be made that little bit more secure.

Job creation is vital, but we also need to train our young people if we are to meet the demands of the new industry. I suggest that the proposed HS2 college and training centre should be in northern Lincolnshire.

Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con): Does my hon. Friend agree that if by any chance it was not possible for such a college to be in northern Lincolnshire, East Yorkshire would be the only other place for it? That would indicate how, as he has explained, East Yorkshire and northern Lincolnshire will benefit from HS2.

Martin Vickers: Well, of course, anything that happens in Yorkshire is second best to what happens in Lincolnshire. I am very happy for a college to be fairly close to northern Lincolnshire, but one there would be ideal. Northern Lincolnshire is a major centre for rail freight; it is the location of the major supplier to the development of the rail network, namely Tata Steel; and the long history of engineering skills in Gainsborough, Lincoln and along the south bank of the Humber makes it an ideal setting.

If HS2 is not built, not only would that demonstrate a loss of confidence in the UK and its ability to invest in infrastructure, but opportunities will be lost. It would diminish the prospect for better rail services, creating more congested roads. An opportunity to spread the tourism appeal of Britain as a whole, rather than just that of central London, will be lost.

Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con): Is not another point for our constituents, who do not enjoy very direct rail services to London, that freeing up capacity on the

28 Apr 2014 : Column 647

east coast main line will mean that our region—our bit of East Yorkshire and north Lincolnshire, both of which I am proud to represent—will finally be a little bit better connected to the capital?

Martin Vickers: I entirely agree. Along with the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), we have battled for better services to London for many years. We are perhaps on the point of achieving that through a separate operator. I agree with my hon. Friend that that point is absolutely vital for our corner of northern Lincolnshire.

This is a project that Britain can afford and that Britain simply cannot afford to abandon. I urge the House to support the Bill.

10.8 pm

Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con): As a Yorkshire MP, I am worried about HS2, but not for the same reasons that Mr Speaker or some of my colleagues are worried. In fact, I am not worried about the actual policy. I am proud to support it: it shows vision and a clear sense of the infrastructure our country needs to compete in the 21st century.

I am not concerned that the policy will suck funding away from other transport projects—the £56 billion of investment in non-HS2 projects between now and 2021, or the £600 million going into the northern hub. I am not worried about HS2 Ltd itself; we have a crackerjack team in Sir David Higgins and the whole management. I am not at all convinced by the arguments against the rationale and the cost-benefit of HS2. The arguments for HS2 on capacity and speed are pretty compelling, as we have heard in this debate, and the value for money projection seems quite conservative. I am not concerned about Britain’s ability to deliver on this project. We have done Eurotunnel, the Olympics and HS1, and we will nail this project without a problem. The number of complaints about the project has been relatively small. There were only 22,000 responses to the consultation before Second Reading. We should take confidence from that support and from the international comparisons, such as the examples of Lille and Lyon in France, the linking of every city of more than 500,000 people in China and, lately, the performance of Eurotunnel, which this year smashed its freight and passenger targets.

My worry is that Yorkshire is not as excited about the project as it should be. This is a phenomenal opportunity for Britain and particularly for Yorkshire and the north. There has been a lacklustre response so far. Labour dominates many of the cities in Yorkshire, but in Parliament it shilly-shallies in its support. Wakefield council has rejected HS2. In a recent poll, a majority of Yorks SMEs seemed a bit lukewarm. There is not the interest, sizzle and enthusiasm that one sees when one goes to Manchester, as I did for the last Conservative conference. I encourage you to come to the next one, Mr Deputy Speaker. There has been little discussion of how Yorkshire can strategically maximise the opportunity of HS2.

The opportunity for the north and for Yorkshire comes not just from the faster speeds to London and Birmingham or from the greater capacity, but from the massive economic investment to integrate Yorkshire and the north more closely. We need to be enthusiastic because transport is vital to our region’s productivity. If one compares the productivity of Liverpool, Manchester and Leeds to geographical areas of a similar size, such as Chicago and the Ruhr valley, there are billions of

28 Apr 2014 : Column 648

pounds of difference in the output. Not only is there lower productivity, but the number of FTSE 100 companies north of Birmingham is only six. Skills are slow to get across the region from west to east and supply chains are not short enough. The keys to fixing those problems are complex, but better transport is vital.

We need to bring our northern cities closer together. Jim O’Neill and his City Growth Commission are absolutely right with the idea of “ManPool”, but perhaps we need to go further and bring all our northern cities closer together. Over the next 10 years, nearly half of global growth will come from just 400 cities. Yorkshire and the north must be in the race. We have a once in a century opportunity to get there. We have to look at how HS2 can be the backbone for that development. We need a second London. It will look different, but we need it if we are to compete in the world.

What do we need to do? Sir David Higgins and his team have clearly articulated their desire to maximise the benefits for the north. We need to work out what we want from the project. Doncaster did not lose out on the benefits of East Coast because of the line, but because of a lack of political will. Every LEP should be pushed hard for an HS2 growth plan and to show how it is working with partners across the region. We need small business groups to engage and promote the opportunity. We need to look at transport as a whole and be clear about what we want. We must do that as quickly as possible. We must look at how we will build on the northern hub, how we will integrate with East Coast and how we will improve trans-Pennine services. We need to look at how Yorkshire has reacted so far and shout much louder about the benefits, tearing up old rivalries—

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): Order. I call Neil Carmichael.

10.14 pm

Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con): This has been a great debate, but it is a debate about economics, rather than transport, and that is what I will focus on in my brief contribution. This is a debate about whether we want this country to compete with our European competitors and to have a powerful punch in the world that we will confront tomorrow. It is not a debate just about whether this or that place will be affected, but about how all of us will be affected and how the economy will be affected.

We must focus on the economic arguments, of which there are three. The first concerns regional disparities because we cannot afford to go on allowing places such as Yorkshire, which we have just heard about, or other parts of our country, to do less well simply because they are not adequately connected. Growth pole theory tells us that if we can get to and invest in somewhere, that place starts to grow. HS2 will do just that; it will provide that opportunity.

The United Kingdom should be as ambitious as Germany was when it reunified. If someone goes to Lower Saxony today, they will see what has happened because it put money into infrastructure and connections, which are now yielding results. For example, a Porsche factory in Leipzig is able to produce cars with literally to the moment delivery of parts, because of those connections. We should be keen on that for ourselves, and that economic argument underpins my thinking.

28 Apr 2014 : Column 649

The second theme we must develop concerns what we are talking about for the railways. My one regret is that we call it high speed rather than high capacity, because capacity is what the argument is about. We are growing as an economy and we need to transport ourselves and everything else more readily, quickly and efficiently. We must have the necessary links and connections, and HS2 will provide them.

It is all about ensuring that the real economy can work. Of course all our cities are great, but they could be greater still if they had appropriate links with our economic infrastructure. We all know if we look at a map that it is easy to get to London from anywhere, but not easy to get from anywhere to somewhere else. Every time we look at a map we confront that problem, and HS2 will help us by connecting the cities that we need to rely on as future growth poles and places that can expand and develop.

The other big issue for me is our place in the world and the global economy. If we demonstrate that we can pull this sort of project off, we will demonstrate that we can pull a load of other things off as well. It is about confidence, the vision we have for ourselves, and our capacity to engineer, deliver and develop the economic future that we want. It is important that we seize the opportunity of HS2 and ensure that it works, and we can do that by ensuring that it connects with the right places. I take the arguments about connecting with airports and so on, and it is right that we consider whether we are going to Heathrow, Gatwick, or the third option that the Mayor of London would—quite rightly—wish us to consider. We need to set our terms of discussion not about the problems we confront but about the solutions and capacities that we can generate through this ambitious project. We should go for it in terms of the economic and cultural arguments, and because it is the right thing to do for our cities beyond London.

Several hon. Members rose—

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): Order. Before I call the next speaker may I suggest that we drop the time limit to four minutes so as to get the Front-Bench speakers in? Then everybody will get in and nobody will be left hanging.

10.18 pm

Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con): May I make it clear that I am willing to support the Government on this HS2 proposal although I have some reservations? I do so, however, in the firm belief and hope that the Government will invest in south-west trains and in the road infrastructure. Plymouth is the 15th largest city in the UK, and for decades it and the south-west have been badly deprived of transport infrastructure. The M5 still stops at Exeter and on occasions it takes at least four hours to get down to my constituency. No improvements have been made over the years to the railway infrastructure; indeed, I would suggest that it is similar to how it was left by Brunel. I remind the House that in 1938 an Act of Parliament was passed to put a new train line underneath Haldon Hill. Unfortunately, Mr Hitler decided he was going to invade the country and that made it very difficult.

28 Apr 2014 : Column 650

I have campaigned on this issue for 15 years both as a candidate and as an MP, but I also want to ensure that we have more three-hour train journeys to and from Plymouth to London, and to ensure that some trains get to Plymouth before 9 am. I thank my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Transport and the Prime Minister for getting our railway up and running before Easter. That, I have to say, has been a major fillip. There is, however, real concern about whether Plymouth, and the Devon and Cornwall peninsular, will receive investment. If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wishes to help to dispel that concern by announcing how much money he will be putting into rail infrastructure, that would be very helpful.

I thank the Government for making improvements to Reading station and I welcome the review of the five available options. All the proposals will be useful in boosting south-west regional growth. Just in case the Government are not aware of how we feel, I will be launching a petition in the next day or so. In short, I will be supporting the Government on HS2, but in return I want a resilient railway line that is not going to be swept away by H20.

10.21 pm

Dr Phillip Lee (Bracknell) (Con): In my short contribution, I will try not to repeat what has been said about the shortcomings of the HS2 project.

Despite the many valid economic and environmental concerns already expressed eloquently by many colleagues, HS2 would, perhaps, still be quite a nice thing to have. Like most people, I prefer travelling on fast trains rather than slow ones, but spending £50 billion plus on something nice to have is just not good enough. Public spending of this magnitude should be about implementing strategic priorities and I do not believe that fast rail tops the priority list of infrastructure projects that are required for the benefit of our country’s future. I would place all of the following ahead of fast rail: new energy generation, such as nuclear reactors; superfast broadband for all, which the South Koreans currently enjoy; a new national hub airport; a fast train connecting Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds and Hull; and a fleet of new regional acute hospitals with supported community hospitals. I believe that the majority of the British public would agree with me.

Any one of the concerns expressed by colleagues, especially by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan), would be reason enough not to spend our resources on HS2—and yes it is about resources. It is not just the money, but about the combined efforts of a large number of people and natural resources that we ought to treasure. None of these reasons, however, gets close to why I cannot support this rail project. I cannot support it because it takes our country in the wrong direction. Quite simply, HS2 is a project of the past, not the future. It is the wrong plan at the wrong time. It will probably contribute to the country’s problems rather than solve any of them: more debt, a blighted local environment along the path of the track, and no likely return in an increasingly global economy dependent on data transfer, not the transport of people. To be blunt, we will not be getting the returns that taxpayers deserve on their investment.

Our national priorities should be about a vision that rockets us into a more competitive world, not about chugging along as we are, albeit 10 minutes faster

28 Apr 2014 : Column 651

between London and Birmingham. Is it truly ambitious of us to want to be the France of the 1970s or the Japan of the 1960s? Our country’s infrastructure spending should be about delivering the new paradigm shifts that have always given our country the edge and delivered inspiring world-leading technology and innovation. A train like the one the Japanese have promised between Tokyo and Nagoya that will travel at 600 km per hour would be proper high-speed rail. We should, perhaps, be building on what could be globally transformative: laser technology, new aircraft engines that could get us to Australia in four hours, new craft to explore the richly resourced ocean bed that we know so little about and to push back frontiers in space, an environment in which real future economic opportunities exist already for British industry.

I believe that the future will be about the fast transmission of data, not people. With recent information technology developments such as 3D printing, securing an economic future for Britain will be more about the capacity for data transmission, not the capacity to transport people. We will all be manufacturers in the future. Manufacturing will not be taking place far away. Government strategy should be about reducing people’s need to make rail journeys. Improving broadband is one way of achieving that. The widespread installation of fibre-optic cabling, the increased use of satellite broadband technology to serve more rural areas and more extensive 4G would allow people to spend longer at home.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con): Does my hon. Friend agree that the strength of the arguments he is making comes from the fact that his constituency will neither benefit nor suffer any disbenefits from HS2? He is making a straightforward economic argument against HS2, for very good reasons.

Dr Lee: I do not have a direct relationship with HS2, but I am of the opinion that I have been elected to a national Parliament and when something affects my country, I should pass comment on it. We are aware of the realities of the future—the need to reduce our dependency on energy and the need to look after our elderly relatives. I suspect we will not be living so far apart from the members of our extended families in future.

In closing, let me say that I have spent the entire afternoon baffled by the contributions of many of my colleagues, on both sides of the House. I do not see a future of people travelling more domestically; I see a future of travelling less. In the 2030s and 2040s, when the project comes to fruition, I suspect we will be travelling less domestically. We need to travel more internationally, which is why I would put a hub airport ahead of fast rail. I am no nimby, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) has pointed out. I have been loyal to the Conservative party’s 2010 manifesto since being elected and I have no intention of voting against anything in that manifesto this evening, so I will be abstaining as a point of principle. HS2 will not get this country to the destination I want for it. Our resources should be better spent elsewhere. I cannot support this project.

10.26 pm

Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con): I think I can speak on behalf of all colleagues who have contributed this evening when I say that this has been an exceptionally

28 Apr 2014 : Column 652

good-natured debate. People have expressed a lot of different, heartfelt opinions and we have had a well-tempered and thoughtful debate. I am sure that people listening this evening will see Parliament at its best, with people really addressing the issues.

You are probably wondering, Mr Deputy Speaker—along with other colleagues—why somebody who represents a constituency pretty much as far as you can get from HS2 is speaking in this debate in support of the Bill. The great western railway was the first of all the high-speed railways, as well as one of the masterpieces Brunel left to us, and it serves us very well down to the south-west. I believe HS2 will have benefits as far away as Cornwall.

I was delighted that the Secretary of State came down to my constituency last summer, travelling on the great western railway line and the local branch lines. He listened to an ambitious presentation made by a partnership of people in Cornwall—the local enterprise partnership, Cornwall council and the rail industry—setting out an ambitious plan for investment in our rail services in Devon and Cornwall. I am pleased by the support that the Secretary of State and his team at the Department have given us over the last few months in developing those proposals. In that, we see a massive investment in our Victorian signalling infrastructure, which would enable a 30-minute service along the line, and a huge investment in our sleeper service, which is important to us in Cornwall.

Finally, with some of the changes needed at Old Oak Common, this Bill presents an opportunity for us in Cornwall, because First Great Western has its sleeper maintenance depot there and needs to move it to make way for other developments. We are keen for it to be relocated to the end of the line, down in Penzance, bringing with it some 60 high-quality engineering jobs. It is only fitting to bring those jobs to Cornwall, as it was Trevithick who invented the first steam engine in Cornwall. As Cornwall has a unique position in England and benefits enormously from EU funds, the idea would be a good deal for the British Government, because what is being proposed is using those funds to help First Great Western to relocate its depot, so I hope this evening that the Secretary of State can provide me with—

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): Order. Just to help the hon. Lady, we are discussing High Speed 2. I know there must be a link to Cornwall, but I am beginning to lose it a little. If she could bring High Speed 2 in now and again, it might help the Chair a little.

Sarah Newton: Yes, this is really about Old Oak Common and moving the depot down to Cornwall, and I would like to finish by asking the Secretary of State to give me his assurance that he will seriously consider the final proposals that have been given to him this evening, put together by the LEP and Cornwall council, that will truly enable us in Cornwall to benefit not only from the massive railway investment that is being made by this Government but also from HS2, and to make sure every part of the nation benefits from this massively important infrastructure project.

10.30 pm

Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con): I hope that in this debate about high-speed rail the Front-Bench team will not mind my talking about high speed. Of

28 Apr 2014 : Column 653

course capacity is extraordinarily important, and we are not just talking about capacity to relieve the west coast main line. The relief that the Y network will give to the east coast main line and the midlands main line is at least as important. I speak as someone whose constituency is dissected by HS1, and we have found that the benefits appear to be much greater than the costs. I speak from that strong perspective. Part of that benefit is down to capacity, but it is also about speed.

It has been of huge advantage to our area that we can get from Ebbsfleet to St Pancras in 17 minutes. Yes, unlike people in Buckinghamshire, we have that intermediate station, but we also benefit from the classic lines which can now take people from Strood to Stratford in 25 minutes and through to St Pancras in 32 minutes. That is bringing in huge amounts of additional people. It is making it much more attractive to come to Medway—to bring in investment, as commercial and professional leaders want to base themselves in Medway. I believe that Birmingham and Manchester will have a similar experience.

If we shorten the journey time from Manchester to London from two hours and eight minutes to one hour and eight minutes, that will be a huge economic boost to Manchester. I find it extraordinary when I hear people say, “Oh, well actually it is going to damage Manchester. It’s going to suck the growth out of Manchester and it will all go to London.” If they believe that, why do they not have the courage of their convictions and argue to slow the line so that it takes four hours rather than two hours?

Damian Collins: Does my hon. Friend agree that east Kent has seen real economic benefits—that wages have been rising faster and unemployment has been falling faster than the national average—because of high-speed rail?

Mark Reckless: Yes I certainly do agree, and I think that is because of those improved journey times, including to Folkestone. The idea that there would be more jobs in Folkestone if the journey time were two hours rather than one hour, or that if we somehow had a man with a red flag in front of the train that would bring the greatest possible economic growth to the north or to Folkestone, is frankly absurd.

Mr McLoughlin: My hon. Friend is making a very good point. He is also making the same point that Sir Albert Bore and Sir Richard Leese would be making to us if they were able to address the House. They are the leaders of their councils and they would say that these lines will bring tremendous benefits to their cities. They are in the best place to know.

Mark Reckless: I agree with the Secretary of State. I would add, however, that further benefits to these northern cities and Birmingham could be accrued if we did more than just fulfil the intention of the direct links through to the continent of Europe. Although I understand why the previously proposed way of doing that has not gained support, I hope that we will still look at the possibility of reinstituting a direct connection between HS1 and HS2, and that when we look at the costs and benefits of that we look not only at the benefits to the

28 Apr 2014 : Column 654

north of being able to get through to Europe, but at the benefits for people from Manchester or Birmingham of being able to go directly through to east London, Kent or East Anglia from a connection at Stratford. The work Greengauge 21 did on that shows that the benefits will be huge. Yes, there would be benefits for my constituents and people in east London from being able to go from Stratford or Ebbsfleet through to Old Oak Common and on to the north, but a connection would also significantly add to the benefits for people coming from Birmingham and the north. I hope we will look at that.

I believe that there is scope within this Bill to make such improvements. From listening to some of the opponents, it is as if they assume that the costs are going to spiral out of control and that the benefits are all grossly exaggerated, but when I look through the work and the detail of the estimates and calculations, they strike me as extraordinarily conservative.

We have learned the lessons from the great infrastructure projects of the past. If we consider Crossrail or the Olympics, we see it is possible to deliver projects to time and to budget, and possibly faster or cheaper. Part of the reason for that is the very big estimate for contingency. Some people criticised, and we have heard Opposition Front Benchers saying that perhaps they would not support a project if costs were spiralling, but actually a substantial contingency had been factored in: £14.5 billion of the £42.6 billion is contingency. It is not contingency in order to get to our best estimate of what the cost is going to be; the contingency has been padded to the degree that we are 95% certain that the cost will come in below the number given. It is expected that more than £4 billion of that contingency will not be used, so perhaps some of that could be put towards providing a decent quality link between HS1 and HS2, to everybody’s benefit.

Mr Straw: Is the hon. Gentleman further reassured by the fact that this project is led by Sir David Higgins, whose estimates for the Olympics, including a substantial so-called “optimism bias”, turned out to be entirely accurate?

Mark Reckless: Yes, I am reassured. I consider there to be a degree of pessimism bias in this case; £700 million has been taken out for the link and it has just been absorbed into even more contingency. I think that the contingency is much too high and that the project will come in significantly below the estimates, and that is just on the cost side. We must also look at the benefits side. We have heard a lot of talk about working on trains and how things are calculated, but there is something much more important when we are projecting the growth in traffic and looking at the benefits.

Over the past 10 years, long-distance rail travel has grown by 5.2% each year on average, yet we are assuming that in the future it is going to grow by only 2.2% per year. I do not understand why there is suddenly to be this collapse in the growth rate for rail traffic, and it is on that basis that projections are made. Furthermore, we are assuming that once we get to 2036, only three years after the project has been completed, there will be no further growth in traffic at all. If we had some more realistic calculations on both costs and benefits, we would see that this becomes an even more attractive project. I believe that it will be more attractive still if we have a proper link between HS2 and HS1, bringing benefits to all.

28 Apr 2014 : Column 655

10.36 pm

Priti Patel (Witham) (Con): I am happy to have the opportunity to contribute in this debate, because I welcome the Government’s approach to investment in our rail infrastructure and infrastructure across the UK. I am conscious of many of the constituency sensitivities raised by all my colleagues, and I commend them in this debate today, but I encourage the Government to carry on in their investment in rail infrastructure. The Secretary of State will know not only of my passion for rail, but of that of the eastern region; he will know of the great eastern main line taskforce that has been set up and all the work we are doing to promote more investment in our rail network. That is why I speak highly of high-speed rail and the work this Government are doing, particularly through this Bill. There is no doubt that this Bill and the investment programme it proposes will not only transform our economy, creating jobs and growth, but, importantly, boost our competitiveness in the world. We need that. The network in the eastern region will be transformed—there is no doubt that there will be natural benefits.

The project will particularly demonstrate that we have had not enough investment in our rail infrastructure, particularly under previous Governments. It is a fact that Britain has languished and is languishing in the World Economic Forum’s index of global competitiveness for its overall infrastructure quality. This Government have been absolutely focused on turning that situation around, and we should all support the Bill on that basis. This is about our place in the world, as well as enhancing our domestic infrastructure.

The final point I wish to make is that we have heard a lot about the value of HS2 to the supply chain and what it will mean for jobs, growth and our economy. There could be at least a £10 billion boost of supply chain contracts, and we should all welcome that. This is a national project and its scale is unprecedented. I would like to make a big plug, because this is an opportunity to create more jobs in the UK. This Government have a tremendous record in supporting British jobs, with 1.7 million new jobs since we have been in government and employment at record numbers. HS2 presents a great opportunity for manufacturing, for greater skills and for engineering, logistics and design jobs in the UK.

It will not surprise you, Mr Deputy Speaker, when I give a plug for Essex at this point. The Essex chamber of commerce wants to be at the forefront of leading that supply chain, and I urge the Secretary of State to engage with Back-Bench MPs and other MPs from around the region. We have the skills and expertise in abundance in my county and across the UK—there is no doubt about that—and we want to help to build HS2. On that basis, I will absolutely be supporting the Government. I applaud more investment in our rail infrastructure—and with that, I will sit down.

10.39 pm

Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab): When the previous Government launched this project four years ago, the noble Lord Adonis said that Britain required transport networks that are high-capacity, efficient and sustainable. That statement remains true today. In the light of continued growth in passenger demand, a lack of resilience against severe weather, and a need for regionally balanced economic growth, the case for those networks is arguably more urgent than ever before.

28 Apr 2014 : Column 656

Many Members have made the case for investment today, and not just for high-speed rail, which is precisely why Network Rail has been allocated more than £37 billion to spend on our existing railways over the next five years, including in the south-west.

The doubling of passenger numbers over the past 20 years has placed enormous demands on our existing infrastructure. The railways are carrying the same number of passengers as they did in the 1920s on a network half the size, and some sections are now reaching the limits of their capacity. As the hon. Members for Redditch (Karen Lumley), for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) and for Northampton South (Mr Binley) have said, nowhere is that more acutely felt than on the west coast main line between Birmingham and London. A vital passenger and freight route, it is the busiest and arguably the most complex rail line in Europe. It is notorious for its heavy gradients and large numbers of challenging bends and curves, many of which are now boxed in by housing developments. They have become a permanent legacy of the line’s original piecemeal construction and they continue to inhibit attempts to bring the west coast main line up to 21st-century standards.

Over the past 50 years, enormous investment has gone into electrification, the ingenuity of tilting trains and, most recently, a 10-year route modernisation programme, which cost the taxpayer at least £9 billion. Just a few years after its completion, we have exhausted nearly all the extra capacity that that £9 billion bought us. Network Rail has warned that by 2024 the line will effectively be full. The lack of capacity is not an abstract problem or a far-off dilemma for future generations to resolve; its effects are already being felt, because as demand for inter-city services increases, providing extra trains inevitably has an impact on commuter services. As hon. Members in the region know, the constraints are so severe that passengers in the west midlands are already at what Peter Parker, the late chairman of British Rail, once called the “crumbling edge of quality”.

If we look back at the timetable changes that took place in December 2008, we see that more services were put into London, but they were at the expense of local services. Journey times were slowed down and services withdrawn. To see this trend’s logical extreme, we need only travel 30 miles north of Birmingham, to the rural stations in Staffordshire that were closed during the west coast modernisation project, and now cannot be reopened, because the paths have been reassigned. The message is clear: we need more capacity. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) said, HS2 is the plan to provide it.

Across the network, freight, commuter, and fast inter-city services all compete for a diminishing number of paths. Those limitations cause innumerable conflicts and compromises in timetables. I cannot agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) and the right hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr O'Brien) who said that we should just enhance the existing line. A full upgrade would be enormously costly, and it would cause an unacceptable amount of disruption, leading to misery for passengers and enormous compensation payments to train operators. At the end of it, such a project would deliver less than half the capacity of a new line. That is why, when the previous Labour Government launched HS2, the need for more capacity was at the heart of their case. For a long time

28 Apr 2014 : Column 657

after the election, that message was lost. As the former Minister with responsibility for rail, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), later admitted, the Government should have concentrated more on the critical issue of capacity.

It was not just the Government’s arguments that showed alarming signs of drift. It took three years to produce this Bill, meaning that there is now no prospect of its receiving Royal Assent before the election. The initial consultation on compensation was found to be

“so unfair as to be unlawful,”

causing prolonged uncertainty for homeowners, tenants and businesses along the route. Not enough emphasis was placed on the regenerative potential of HS2, or the benefits it could bring to the existing rail network. More work needs to be done in this area, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), the Chair of the Transport Committee, set out. Some environmental information is incomplete and the words mitigation and compensation are used interchangeably by the Government when they mean very different things. There has been real confusion about plans for Euston station. Three times now, HS2 Ltd has made radically different proposals and local residents and businesses deserve better.

Perhaps most serious of all, costs seem to be spiralling out of control and that is why Labour forced the Government to introduce much tougher reporting of the spending through an amendment to the preparation Act, tabled by me and my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh). We also amended the Bill to require better integration with existing transport networks and specific reporting of the jobs and skills generated in connection with the project. I am proud that even in opposition Labour has improved this project and ensured better value for taxpayers’ money.

With the appointment of Sir David Higgins, the Government are finally taking the delivery of the project seriously and Labour will continue to be a critical friend to HS2. We will subject the Bill to close line-by-line scrutiny and will keep up the pressure on the Government to bring down the cost of the project. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield argued in her opening speech, the Higgins report concluded that substantial savings can be achieved if there is better leadership of the project and also sensibly recommended removing the proposed link with the north London line, which was always an inadequate compromise and satisfied no one.

We welcome the recommendation that there should be a new focus on the benefits that phase 2 of the project can bring through new connections between the great cities of the midlands and the north. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) noted, we have been operating without one central connection since much of the Great Central Railway disappeared. In my own city, part of it is under a tram line and part of it is under a shopping centre.

I know from experience just how poor the links are between Birmingham, the east midlands, the north-west and Leeds. As Members including my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), the hon. Members for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) and

28 Apr 2014 : Column 658

for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker), my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) and the hon. Members for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry), for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) and for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) all recognised, improving those connections will help to deliver sustainable, balanced growth and send the message that we are prepared to invest in 21st-century infrastructure for the midlands and the north, not just for London and the south-east.

It is worth emphasising that the Government have yet to respond to the consultation on the proposed route for phase 2. I know that some hon. Members have concerns about the impact of those proposals on their constituencies, including my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent South and for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) and the hon. Members for Warrington South (David Mowat) and for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), but voting for the Bill today in no way sets in stone the route for phase 2. It is vital that submissions to that route consultation are considered on their merits and we look forward to the Government’s response.

Andrew Bridgen: I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. She quotes the noble Lord Adonis, but she does not quote the noble Lord Mandelson, who said that HS2 was merely a ploy for the last election drawn up on the back of an envelope, or the noble Lord Prescott, who calls HS2 the “great northern con”.

Lilian Greenwood: We will see who changes their mind, but I think that the case for our needing this railway has been clearly made.

When petitioners appear before the Committee to make their case for changes in mitigation, they need to know that they will receive a fair and impartial hearing. Unlike the Mayor of London, we do not dismiss genuine concerns about the environmental impact. The Bill has some way to go and I hope that the new Committee will hear evidence in the areas most affected by the construction, including Euston and the constituencies of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Glenda Jackson), the hon. Members for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) and for North Warwickshire (Dan Byles), the right hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman), my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan), my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) and the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray).

Last month, I visited Birmingham to see the plans that the city council and Centro, the transport authority, put in place for HS2. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) described some of them. Anyone would be struck by the ambition of those plans, the number of jobs that will be created and the regeneration that will be achieved. Similar benefits should and can be achieved for both Euston and Old Oak Common.

The west midlands and the nation as a whole need this project to meet rail capacity challenges, but it can also deliver huge economic benefits and address the transport inequalities that continue to hold our regions back. HS2 represents a great opportunity for the whole country and I hope that hon. Members will support the principle of the Bill by giving it a Second Reading.

28 Apr 2014 : Column 659

10.49 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill): The debate has highlighted not only the need for HS2 but the importance of getting it right. This is a scheme that will play a vital role in creating the necessary conditions for economic growth, but that does not mean we should press ahead unchecked. We must be clear about the impacts and act responsibly in addressing them by providing appropriate mitigation for any adverse environmental consequences, and fair compensation for those affected by the new railway.

Let me summarise how we respond to those crucial issues. First, we have been clear about the cost. It is a considerable investment but it is spread over 10 years, delivering benefits over decades, perhaps for centuries, as the Victorian network continues to deliver. This is also a project that will stand the test of time, and it is not at the expense of other investment, as we have heard. It is alongside high levels of investment in roads, in the existing rail network and in local transport schemes. This is one part of a rounded transport strategy.

It is incumbent on us to ensure that the scheme sticks to its schedule and budget, so that taxpayers get value for money, and they will. To assist us, we have recently appointed leading experts, Sir David Higgins and Simon Kirby, to lead the delivery and construction of the scheme. Following his recent review, Sir David confirmed that the scheme is on track for construction to begin in 2017.

Secondly, unfortunately it is not possible to construct a project such has this without having some impacts on the environment. However, since the very beginning, identifying those impacts and developing proposals for appropriate mitigation have been key priorities. We have carried out environmental assessments and proposed mitigation measures. We are committed to no net loss of biodiversity, as I explained to the Environmental Audit Committee recently, and we are replacing habitats for wildlife. We are generally tunnelling under rather than travelling through the Chilterns area of outstanding natural beauty, and we are integrating the railway into the landscape, hiding much of it from view. We are incorporating natural and man-made barriers to reduce noise and vibration, and we have set binding commitments to control the impacts of construction. On all of that we have consulted extensively. We have taken on board suggestions for improving the scheme, and before the Easter recess, the House received an independent report summarising consultation responses to inform its decision tonight.

Thirdly, I come to the measures to support those properties that may be affected, as raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) and others. People living near the proposed route are understandably worried. They deserve generous assistance and they will receive it. We have already helped more than 100 households under the exceptional hardship scheme, and we have now launched an express purchase scheme for land safeguarded for phase 1, helping owner-occupiers to sell quickly and with less fuss, regardless of whether their property is needed for HS2. [Interruption.] They get the full, unblighted open-market value of their property, plus 10%, plus reasonable moving costs, including stamp duty. [Interruption.]

28 Apr 2014 : Column 660

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle): Order. Conversations are going on on both sides of the House. I want to hear the Minister, as I am sure do all Members’ constituents. Minister Goodwill.

Mr Goodwill: Later this year, we will launch an enhanced need-to-sell scheme to help owner-occupiers who need to sell their property but cannot because of HS2. I stress that there is no distance test to pass in this case. We will also launch a voluntary purchase scheme giving owner-occupiers in rural areas up to 120 metres from the line the choice to sell their property and receive its full unblighted market value. We will also consult on offering them a new choice of a cash alternative, and we will consult on new home owner payments for owner-occupiers in rural areas between 120 and 300 metres from the line to help share more of the expected economic benefits of HS2 with rural home owners, not just helping those who want to move, but also those who need to stay in their homes. We appreciate that for some no amount of money or help will be enough, and we do not pretend that these proposals will satisfy everyone, but we believe that they are fair and represent the best possible balance between properly helping people and providing value for money for the taxpayers.

I come now to some of the comments made in the debate. I thank Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition for their support. It was their idea after all. As a fellow Yorkshire MP, the shadow Secretary of State recognises the benefits to the north, and we also agree that the project should be delivered in a cost-effective way. Indeed, another Yorkshire MP, the shadow Chancellor, agrees with us that it is absolutely right—possibly for the first time. The shadow Secretary of State is correct in holding us to our word on the environmental mitigation included in the scheme. She asked me about the response to the HS2 phase 2 consultation. We will respond in the autumn and make further decisions following that.

The shadow Secretary of State also mentioned resilience in the south-west and we will certainly not ignore other parts of the country. I was recently in Dawlish and saw the work carried out there. I also drove on the A30 and A303 in the west country between Stonehenge and the Blackdowns, which is an important route, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile).

Who could not have been impressed by the enthusiasm of my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) for HS2 and for the advantages for God’s own county? He said that Yorkshire could aspire to have a second London, but I think we could do better than that.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) is a stalwart campaigner on the behalf of her constituents and raises concerns about the cost of the project. She cannot have it both ways. One reason why costs have increased is the unprecedented environmental mitigation, including the more than nine of the 11 miles of the line in her constituency that is in either a tunnel or a cutting. She is perfectly entitled to her own opinion of the project, but she is not entitled to her own facts.

I thank the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), the Chair of the Transport Committee, for her support. I see the Select Committee as a critical friend and look forward to its future reports.

28 Apr 2014 : Column 661

My right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns) drew attention to the struggle to build projects such as HS1, which spanned generations, and the need to reduce overcrowding by not only increasing capacity on the new north-south railway, but also freeing up capacity on existing lines for passengers and freight.

The right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) welcomed the scrapping of the HS1-HS2 link, but not much else.

I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) that the excavated material from the tunnel in the Chilterns will not be disposed of in his patch.

The hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) outlined the advantages for Manchester and the north-west, as did the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), and drew attention to historical objectors to rail projects. I was reminded that the east coast main line would have gone through Stamford were it not for Lord Burghley’s interests in the coaching industry. Instead, the line went through a little-known place called Peterborough and look at the benefits it brought there. The hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton said that the quicker we do this, the better, and I say “Hear, hear.”

The hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) outlined the advantages to Birmingham and its airport, and I heard her concern about the properties of the National Trust, with which we are working to protect the setting of Hartwell house.

The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) described how HS2 will bridge the north-south divide, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw).

I understand the concerns of my right hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr O’Brien) about construction in his constituency. He suggested that double-decking could be a solution, but that would not only be just a stop-gap but result in years of weekend engineering closures and replacement buses on the west coast main line.

For their supportive comments, I thank the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) and my hon. Friends the Members for Northampton South (Mr Binley), for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker), for Redditch (Karen Lumley), for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry), for Warrington South (David Mowat), for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) and for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), who stressed the importance of the project to Leeds.

The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) supports the scheme, but I understand his concerns about the Washwood Heath maintenance depot.

I agree with the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) that it is wrong to brand people with genuine concerns about the line’s impact as nimbys.

Tonight the House faces a great decision, one of national importance that will profoundly affect the way our economy develops for generations. The House must be satisfied with the need for HS2, and it must be satisfied that the appropriate measures are in place to deliver the scheme in a sustainable way, both economically and environmentally. HS2 will help drive this country forward. It will create new capacity and enable better

28 Apr 2014 : Column 662

use of existing transport corridors. It will join up our great cities and strengthen our economy. As a result, it will help open up opportunities currently held back by lack of investment. Along the way, it will be subject to careful, detailed scrutiny. Tonight’s vote is an important step in taking HS2 forward and I urge right hon. and hon. Members to support the Bill for phase 1.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The House divided:

Ayes 50, Noes 451.

Division No. 254]

[

10.59 pm

AYES

Afriyie, Adam

Baker, Steve

Baron, Mr John

Blackman, Bob

Bone, Mr Peter

Brady, Mr Graham

Bridgen, Andrew

Byles, Dan

Cash, Mr William

Chope, Mr Christopher

Cunningham, Mr Jim

Davies, Philip

Dobson, rh Frank

Dowd, Jim

Durkan, Mark

Edwards, Jonathan

Engel, Natascha

Fabricant, Michael

Field, rh Mr Frank

Field, Mark

Gillan, rh Mrs Cheryl

Hollobone, Mr Philip

Hopkins, Kelvin

Kelly, Chris

Lee, Dr Phillip

Lefroy, Jeremy

Lewis, Dr Julian

Llwyd, rh Mr Elfyn

Loughton, Tim

Lucas, Caroline

McDonnell, John

Moon, Mrs Madeleine

Nuttall, Mr David

Offord, Dr Matthew

Pawsey, Mark

Pincher, Christopher

Randall, rh Sir John

Robertson, Mr Laurence

Robinson, Mr Geoffrey

Sharma, Mr Virendra

Sheerman, Mr Barry

Skinner, Mr Dennis

Spelman, rh Mrs Caroline

Tapsell, rh Sir Peter

Turner, Mr Andrew

Tyrie, Mr Andrew

Walley, Joan

White, Chris

Wiggin, Bill

Williams, Hywel

Tellers for the Ayes:

Kate Hoey

and

Mr James Gray

NOES

Abrahams, Debbie

Ainsworth, rh Mr Bob

Aldous, Peter

Alexander, rh Danny

Alexander, Heidi

Ali, Rushanara

Allen, Mr Graham

Andrew, Stuart

Arbuthnot, rh Mr James

Ashworth, Jonathan

Austin, Ian

Bacon, Mr Richard

Bailey, Mr Adrian

Bain, Mr William

Baker, Norman

Baldwin, Harriett

Balls, rh Ed

Banks, Gordon

Barclay, Stephen

Barker, rh Gregory

Barron, rh Kevin

Barwell, Gavin

Bebb, Guto

Beckett, rh Margaret

Begg, Dame Anne

Beith, rh Sir Alan

Benn, rh Hilary

Benton, Mr Joe

Beresford, Sir Paul

Berger, Luciana

Berry, Jake

Betts, Mr Clive

Bingham, Andrew

Binley, Mr Brian

Blackman-Woods, Roberta

Blackwood, Nicola

Blears, rh Hazel

Blenkinsop, Tom

Blomfield, Paul

Blunkett, rh Mr David

Blunt, Crispin

Boles, Nick

Bradley, Karen

Brake, rh Tom

Bray, Angie

Brazier, Mr Julian

Brennan, Kevin

Brine, Steve

Brokenshire, James

Brooke, Annette

Brown, Lyn

Brown, Mr Russell

Browne, Mr Jeremy

Bruce, rh Sir Malcolm

Bryant, Chris

Buck, Ms Karen

Buckland, Mr Robert

Burden, Richard

Burley, Mr Aidan

Burnham, rh Andy

Burns, Conor

Burns, rh Mr Simon

Burrowes, Mr David

Burstow, rh Paul

Burt, rh Alistair

Burt, Lorely

Byrne, rh Mr Liam

Cable, rh Vince

Cairns, Alun

Campbell, rh Mr Alan

Campbell, rh Sir Menzies

Carmichael, Neil

Carswell, Mr Douglas

Champion, Sarah

Chapman, Jenny

Chishti, Rehman

Clark, rh Greg

Clark, Katy

Clarke, rh Mr Kenneth

Clarke, rh Mr Tom

Clwyd, rh Ann

Coaker, Vernon

Coffey, Dr Thérèse

Collins, Damian

Colvile, Oliver

Connarty, Michael

Cooper, Rosie

Cooper, rh Yvette

Cox, Mr Geoffrey

Crabb, Stephen

Creagh, Mary

Creasy, Stella

Crockart, Mike

Crouch, Tracey

Cryer, John

Cunningham, Alex

Cunningham, Sir Tony

Curran, Margaret

Dakin, Nic

Danczuk, Simon

Davey, rh Mr Edward

David, Wayne

Davidson, Mr Ian

Davies, David T. C.

(Monmouth)

Davies, Glyn

de Bois, Nick

De Piero, Gloria

Djanogly, Mr Jonathan

Dobbin, Jim

Docherty, Thomas

Doran, Mr Frank

Dorrell, rh Mr Stephen

Doughty, Stephen

Doyle, Gemma

Doyle-Price, Jackie

Dromey, Jack

Dugher, Michael

Duncan, rh Mr Alan

Duncan Smith, rh Mr Iain

Dunne, Mr Philip

Eagle, Ms Angela

Eagle, Maria

Efford, Clive

Elliott, Julie

Ellis, Michael

Ellison, Jane

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Ellwood, Mr Tobias

Elphicke, Charlie

Eustice, George

Evans, Chris

Evans, Graham

Evans, Jonathan

Evennett, Mr David

Fallon, rh Michael

Featherstone, Lynne

Flint, rh Caroline

Flynn, Paul

Foster, rh Mr Don

Fovargue, Yvonne

Fox, rh Dr Liam

Francois, rh Mr Mark

Freeman, George

Freer, Mike

Fullbrook, Lorraine

Fuller, Richard

Gale, Sir Roger

Gardiner, Barry

Garnier, Sir Edward

Gauke, Mr David

Gibb, Mr Nick

Gilmore, Sheila

Glass, Pat

Glen, John

Glindon, Mrs Mary

Goldsmith, Zac

Goodman, Helen

Goodwill, Mr Robert

Gove, rh Michael

Grant, Mrs Helen

Green, rh Damian

Green, Kate

Greening, rh Justine

Greenwood, Lilian

Griffith, Nia

Griffiths, Andrew

Gummer, Ben

Gyimah, Mr Sam

Hague, rh Mr William

Hain, rh Mr Peter

Halfon, Robert

Hames, Duncan

Hammond, rh Mr Philip

Hammond, Stephen

Hancock, Matthew

Hands, rh Greg

Hanson, rh Mr David

Harper, Mr Mark

Harrington, Richard

Harris, Rebecca

Harris, Mr Tom

Hart, Simon

Haselhurst, rh Sir Alan

Havard, Mr Dai

Hayes, rh Mr John

Heald, Oliver

Healey, rh John

Hemming, John

Henderson, Gordon

Hendrick, Mark

Hendry, Charles

Herbert, rh Nick

Heyes, David

Hillier, Meg

Hilling, Julie

Hinds, Damian

Hoban, Mr Mark

Hodge, rh Margaret

Hodgson, Mrs Sharon

Hollingbery, George

Hood, Mr Jim

Hopkins, Kris

Horwood, Martin

Hosie, Stewart

Howarth, rh Mr George

Howarth, Sir Gerald

Howell, John

Hughes, rh Simon

Hunt, rh Mr Jeremy

Hunt, Tristram

Huppert, Dr Julian

Irranca-Davies, Huw

Jackson, Glenda

James, Margot

James, Mrs Siân C.

Jamieson, Cathy

Jarvis, Dan

Javid, Sajid

Johnson, rh Alan

Johnson, Diana

Johnson, Gareth

Jones, Andrew

Jones, rh Mr David

Jones, Graham

Jones, Mr Marcus

Jones, Susan Elan

Jowell, rh Dame Tessa

Kane, Mike

Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald

Kawczynski, Daniel

Kendall, Liz

Kennedy, rh Mr Charles

Khan, rh Sadiq

Kirby, Simon

Knight, rh Sir Greg

Kwarteng, Kwasi

Lamb, Norman

Lammy, rh Mr David

Lancaster, Mark

Lansley, rh Mr Andrew

Latham, Pauline

Laws, rh Mr David

Lazarowicz, Mark

Lee, Jessica

Leslie, Charlotte

Leslie, Chris

Letwin, rh Mr Oliver

Lewell-Buck, Mrs Emma

Lewis, Brandon

Lewis, Mr Ivan

Lilley, rh Mr Peter

Lloyd, Stephen

Lopresti, Jack

Love, Mr Andrew

Lucas, Ian

Luff, Sir Peter

Lumley, Karen

Macleod, Mary

MacNeil, Mr Angus Brendan

Mactaggart, Fiona

Mahmood, Shabana

Malhotra, Seema

Mann, John

Marsden, Mr Gordon

Maude, rh Mr Francis

May, rh Mrs Theresa

Maynard, Paul

McCann, Mr Michael

McCarthy, Kerry

McCartney, Jason

McCartney, Karl

McClymont, Gregg

McDonagh, Siobhain

McDonald, Andy

McFadden, rh Mr Pat

McGovern, Alison

McGovern, Jim

McGuire, rh Mrs Anne

McKechin, Ann

McKenzie, Mr Iain

McKinnell, Catherine

McLoughlin, rh Mr Patrick

McVey, rh Esther

Meacher, rh Mr Michael

Meale, Sir Alan

Menzies, Mark

Metcalfe, Stephen

Miliband, rh Edward

Miller, Andrew

Miller, rh Maria

Mills, Nigel

Milton, Anne

Mitchell, rh Mr Andrew

Moore, rh Michael

Mordaunt, Penny

Morden, Jessica

Morgan, Nicky

Morrice, Graeme

(Livingston)

Morris, David

Morris, James

Mosley, Stephen

Mowat, David

Mundell, rh David

Munn, Meg

Munt, Tessa

Murphy, rh Mr Jim

Murphy, rh Paul

Murray, Ian

Murrison, Dr Andrew

Nandy, Lisa

Nash, Pamela

Neill, Robert

Newmark, Mr Brooks

Newton, Sarah

Nokes, Caroline

Ollerenshaw, Eric

Opperman, Guy

Osborne, rh Mr George

Osborne, Sandra

Ottaway, rh Sir Richard

Owen, Albert

Paice, rh Sir James

Paisley, Ian

Parish, Neil

Patel, Priti

Paterson, rh Mr Owen

Penning, rh Mike

Penrose, John

Percy, Andrew

Perkins, Toby

Phillips, Stephen

Pickles, rh Mr Eric

Poulter, Dr Daniel

Pound, Stephen

Powell, Lucy

Prisk, Mr Mark

Pugh, John

Raab, Mr Dominic

Raynsford, rh Mr Nick

Reckless, Mark

Reed, Mr Steve

Rees-Mogg, Jacob

Reeves, Rachel

Reid, Mr Alan

Reynolds, Emma

Reynolds, Jonathan

Rifkind, rh Sir Malcolm

Robathan, rh Mr Andrew

Robertson, rh Hugh

Robertson, John

Rogerson, Dan

Rosindell, Andrew

Roy, Mr Frank

Roy, Lindsay

Ruane, Chris

Rudd, Amber

Ruddock, rh Dame Joan

Rutley, David

Sandys, Laura

Sarwar, Anas

Sawford, Andy

Scott, Mr Lee

Seabeck, Alison

Selous, Andrew

Shapps, rh Grant

Sharma, Alok

Shelbrooke, Alec

Shepherd, Sir Richard

Sheridan, Jim

Shuker, Gavin

Simpson, Mr Keith

Skidmore, Chris

Slaughter, Mr Andy

Smith, Angela

Smith, Chloe

Smith, Henry

Smith, Julian

Smith, Nick

Smith, Owen

Smith, Sir Robert

Soames, rh Nicholas

Soubry, Anna

Spellar, rh Mr John

Spencer, Mr Mark

Stevenson, John

Stewart, Bob

Stewart, Iain

Stewart, Rory

Straw, rh Mr Jack

Stride, Mel

Stringer, Graham

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Stuart, Mr Graham

Stunell, rh Sir Andrew

Sturdy, Julian

Sutcliffe, Mr Gerry

Swales, Ian

Swayne, rh Mr Desmond

Swire, rh Mr Hugo

Tami, Mark

Teather, Sarah

Timms, rh Stephen

Timpson, Mr Edward

Tomlinson, Justin

Tredinnick, David

Trickett, Jon

Truss, Elizabeth

Turner, Karl

Twigg, Stephen

Umunna, Mr Chuka

Uppal, Paul

Vaizey, Mr Edward

Vara, Mr Shailesh

Vaz, rh Keith

Vaz, Valerie

Vickers, Martin

Villiers, rh Mrs Theresa

Walker, Mr Charles

Walker, Mr Robin

Wallace, Mr Ben

Walter, Mr Robert

Watkinson, Dame Angela

Watts, Mr Dave

Weatherley, Mike

Webb, Steve

Weir, Mr Mike

Wharton, James

Wheeler, Heather

Whiteford, Dr Eilidh

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Whittaker, Craig

Whittingdale, Mr John

Willetts, rh Mr David

Williams, Mr Mark

Williams, Stephen

Williamson, Chris

Williamson, Gavin

Willott, Jenny

Wilson, Phil

Wilson, Mr Rob

Winnick, Mr David

Winterton, rh Ms Rosie

Wishart, Pete

Wollaston, Dr Sarah

Woodcock, John

Wright, David

Wright, Mr Iain

Wright, Simon

Yeo, Mr Tim

Young, rh Sir George

Zahawi, Nadhim

Tellers for the Noes:

Mark Hunter

and

Claire Perry

Question accordingly negatived.

28 Apr 2014 : Column 663

28 Apr 2014 : Column 664

28 Apr 2014 : Column 665

Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 62(2)), That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The House divided:

Ayes 452, Noes 41.

Division No. 255]

[

11.16 pm

AYES

Abrahams, Debbie

Ainsworth, rh Mr Bob

Aldous, Peter

Alexander, rh Danny

Alexander, Heidi

Ali, Rushanara

Allen, Mr Graham

Andrew, Stuart

Arbuthnot, rh Mr James

Ashworth, Jonathan

Austin, Ian

Bacon, Mr Richard

Bailey, Mr Adrian

Bain, Mr William

Baker, Norman

Baldwin, Harriett

Balls, rh Ed

Banks, Gordon

Barclay, Stephen

Barker, rh Gregory

Barron, rh Kevin

Barwell, Gavin

Bebb, Guto

Beckett, rh Margaret

Begg, Dame Anne

Beith, rh Sir Alan

Benn, rh Hilary

Benton, Mr Joe

Beresford, Sir Paul

Berger, Luciana

Berry, Jake

Betts, Mr Clive

Bingham, Andrew

Binley, Mr Brian

Blackman-Woods, Roberta

Blackwood, Nicola

Blears, rh Hazel

Blenkinsop, Tom

Blomfield, Paul

Blunkett, rh Mr David

Blunt, Crispin

Boles, Nick

Bradley, Karen

Brake, rh Tom

Bray, Angie

Brazier, Mr Julian

Brennan, Kevin

Brine, Steve

Brokenshire, James

Brooke, Annette

Brown, Lyn

Brown, Mr Russell

Browne, Mr Jeremy

Bruce, rh Sir Malcolm

Bryant, Chris

Buck, Ms Karen

Buckland, Mr Robert

Burden, Richard

Burley, Mr Aidan

Burnham, rh Andy

Burns, Conor

Burns, rh Mr Simon

Burrowes, Mr David

Burstow, rh Paul

Burt, rh Alistair

Burt, Lorely

Byrne, rh Mr Liam

Cable, rh Vince

Cairns, Alun

Campbell, rh Mr Alan

Campbell, rh Sir Menzies

Carmichael, Neil

Carswell, Mr Douglas

Champion, Sarah

Chapman, Jenny

Chishti, Rehman

Clark, rh Greg

Clark, Katy

Clarke, rh Mr Kenneth

Clarke, rh Mr Tom

Clwyd, rh Ann

Coaker, Vernon

Coffey, Dr Thérèse

Collins, Damian

Colvile, Oliver

Connarty, Michael

Cooper, Rosie

Cooper, rh Yvette

Cox, Mr Geoffrey

Crabb, Stephen

Creagh, Mary

Creasy, Stella

Crockart, Mike

Crouch, Tracey

Cryer, John

Cunningham, Alex

Cunningham, Sir Tony

Curran, Margaret

Dakin, Nic

Danczuk, Simon

Davey, rh Mr Edward

David, Wayne

Davidson, Mr Ian

Davies, David T. C.

(Monmouth)

Davies, Glyn

de Bois, Nick

De Piero, Gloria

Djanogly, Mr Jonathan

Dobbin, Jim

Docherty, Thomas

Doran, Mr Frank

Dorrell, rh Mr Stephen

Doughty, Stephen

Doyle, Gemma

Doyle-Price, Jackie

Dromey, Jack

Dugher, Michael

Duncan, rh Mr Alan

Duncan Smith, rh Mr Iain

Dunne, Mr Philip

Eagle, Ms Angela

Eagle, Maria

Efford, Clive

Elliott, Julie

Ellis, Michael

Ellison, Jane

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Ellwood, Mr Tobias

Elphicke, Charlie

Eustice, George

Evans, Chris

Evans, Graham

Evans, Jonathan

Evennett, Mr David

Fallon, rh Michael

Featherstone, Lynne

Flint, rh Caroline

Flynn, Paul

Foster, rh Mr Don

Fovargue, Yvonne

Fox, rh Dr Liam

Francois, rh Mr Mark

Freeman, George

Freer, Mike

Fullbrook, Lorraine

Fuller, Richard

Gale, Sir Roger

Gardiner, Barry

Garnier, Sir Edward

Gauke, Mr David

Gibb, Mr Nick

Gilmore, Sheila

Glass, Pat

Glen, John

Glindon, Mrs Mary

Goldsmith, Zac

Goodman, Helen

Goodwill, Mr Robert

Gove, rh Michael

Grant, Mrs Helen

Green, rh Damian

Green, Kate

Greening, rh Justine

Greenwood, Lilian

Griffith, Nia

Griffiths, Andrew

Gummer, Ben

Gyimah, Mr Sam

Hague, rh Mr William

Hain, rh Mr Peter

Halfon, Robert

Hames, Duncan

Hammond, rh Mr Philip

Hammond, Stephen

Hancock, Matthew

Hands, rh Greg

Hanson, rh Mr David

Harper, Mr Mark

Harrington, Richard

Harris, Rebecca

Harris, Mr Tom

Hart, Simon

Haselhurst, rh Sir Alan

Havard, Mr Dai

Hayes, rh Mr John

Heald, Oliver

Healey, rh John

Hemming, John

Henderson, Gordon

Hendrick, Mark

Hendry, Charles

Herbert, rh Nick

Heyes, David

Hillier, Meg

Hilling, Julie

Hinds, Damian

Hoban, Mr Mark

Hodge, rh Margaret

Hodgson, Mrs Sharon

Hollingbery, George

Hood, Mr Jim

Hopkins, Kris

Horwood, Martin

Hosie, Stewart

Howarth, rh Mr George

Howarth, Sir Gerald

Howell, John

Hughes, rh Simon

Hunt, rh Mr Jeremy

Hunt, Tristram

Hunter, Mark

Huppert, Dr Julian

Irranca-Davies, Huw

Jackson, Glenda

James, Margot

James, Mrs Siân C.

Jamieson, Cathy

Jarvis, Dan

Javid, Sajid

Jenkin, Mr Bernard

Johnson, rh Alan

Johnson, Diana

Johnson, Gareth

Jones, Andrew

Jones, rh Mr David

Jones, Graham

Jones, Mr Marcus

Jones, Susan Elan

Jowell, rh Dame Tessa

Kane, Mike

Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald

Kawczynski, Daniel

Kendall, Liz

Kennedy, rh Mr Charles

Khan, rh Sadiq

Kirby, Simon

Knight, rh Sir Greg

Kwarteng, Kwasi

Lamb, Norman

Lammy, rh Mr David

Lancaster, Mark

Lansley, rh Mr Andrew

Latham, Pauline

Laws, rh Mr David

Lazarowicz, Mark

Lee, Jessica

Leslie, Charlotte

Leslie, Chris

Letwin, rh Mr Oliver

Lewell-Buck, Mrs Emma

Lewis, Brandon

Lewis, Mr Ivan

Lilley, rh Mr Peter

Lloyd, Stephen

Lopresti, Jack

Love, Mr Andrew

Lucas, Ian

Luff, Sir Peter

Lumley, Karen

Macleod, Mary

MacNeil, Mr Angus Brendan

Mactaggart, Fiona

Mahmood, Shabana

Malhotra, Seema

Mann, John

Marsden, Mr Gordon

Maude, rh Mr Francis

May, rh Mrs Theresa

Maynard, Paul

McCann, Mr Michael

McCarthy, Kerry

McCartney, Jason

McCartney, Karl

McClymont, Gregg

McDonagh, Siobhain

McDonald, Andy

McFadden, rh Mr Pat

McGovern, Alison

McGovern, Jim

McGuire, rh Mrs Anne

McKechin, Ann

McKenzie, Mr Iain

McKinnell, Catherine

McLoughlin, rh Mr Patrick

McVey, rh Esther

Meacher, rh Mr Michael

Meale, Sir Alan

Menzies, Mark

Metcalfe, Stephen

Miliband, rh Edward

Miller, Andrew

Miller, rh Maria

Mills, Nigel

Mitchell, rh Mr Andrew

Moon, Mrs Madeleine

Moore, rh Michael

Mordaunt, Penny

Morden, Jessica

Morgan, Nicky

Morrice, Graeme

(Livingston)

Morris, David

Morris, James

Mosley, Stephen

Mowat, David

Mundell, rh David

Munn, Meg

Munt, Tessa

Murphy, rh Mr Jim

Murphy, rh Paul

Murray, Ian

Murrison, Dr Andrew

Nandy, Lisa

Nash, Pamela

Neill, Robert

Newmark, Mr Brooks

Newton, Sarah

Nokes, Caroline

Offord, Dr Matthew

Ollerenshaw, Eric

Opperman, Guy

Osborne, rh Mr George

Osborne, Sandra

Ottaway, rh Sir Richard

Owen, Albert

Paice, rh Sir James

Paisley, Ian

Parish, Neil

Patel, Priti

Paterson, rh Mr Owen

Penning, rh Mike

Penrose, John

Percy, Andrew

Perkins, Toby

Perry, Claire

Phillips, Stephen

Pickles, rh Mr Eric

Poulter, Dr Daniel

Pound, Stephen

Powell, Lucy

Prisk, Mr Mark

Pugh, John

Raab, Mr Dominic

Raynsford, rh Mr Nick

Reckless, Mark

Reed, Mr Steve

Rees-Mogg, Jacob

Reeves, Rachel

Reid, Mr Alan

Reynolds, Emma

Reynolds, Jonathan

Rifkind, rh Sir Malcolm

Robathan, rh Mr Andrew

Robertson, rh Hugh

Robertson, John

Rogerson, Dan

Rosindell, Andrew

Roy, Mr Frank

Roy, Lindsay

Ruane, Chris

Ruddock, rh Dame Joan

Rutley, David

Sandys, Laura

Sarwar, Anas

Sawford, Andy

Scott, Mr Lee

Seabeck, Alison

Selous, Andrew

Shapps, rh Grant

Sharma, Alok

Sharma, Mr Virendra

Sheridan, Jim

Shuker, Gavin

Simpson, Mr Keith

Skidmore, Chris

Slaughter, Mr Andy

Smith, Angela

Smith, Chloe

Smith, Henry

Smith, Julian

Smith, Nick

Smith, Owen

Smith, Sir Robert

Soames, rh Nicholas

Soubry, Anna

Spellar, rh Mr John

Spencer, Mr Mark

Stevenson, John

Stewart, Bob

Stewart, Iain

Stewart, Rory

Straw, rh Mr Jack

Stride, Mel

Stringer, Graham

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Stuart, Mr Graham

Stunell, rh Sir Andrew

Sturdy, Julian

Swales, Ian

Swayne, rh Mr Desmond

Swire, rh Mr Hugo

Tami, Mark

Teather, Sarah

Timms, rh Stephen

Timpson, Mr Edward

Tomlinson, Justin

Tredinnick, David

Trickett, Jon

Truss, Elizabeth

Turner, Karl

Twigg, Stephen

Umunna, Mr Chuka

Uppal, Paul

Vaizey, Mr Edward

Vara, Mr Shailesh

Vaz, rh Keith

Vaz, Valerie

Vickers, Martin

Villiers, rh Mrs Theresa

Walker, Mr Charles

Walker, Mr Robin

Wallace, Mr Ben

Walter, Mr Robert

Watkinson, Dame Angela

Watts, Mr Dave

Weatherley, Mike

Webb, Steve

Weir, Mr Mike

Wharton, James

Wheeler, Heather

Whiteford, Dr Eilidh

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Whittaker, Craig

Whittingdale, Mr John

Willetts, rh Mr David

Williams, Mr Mark

Williams, Stephen

Williamson, Chris

Williamson, Gavin

Willott, Jenny

Wilson, Phil

Wilson, Mr Rob

Winnick, Mr David

Winterton, rh Ms Rosie

Wishart, Pete

Wollaston, Dr Sarah

Woodcock, John

Wright, David

Wright, Mr Iain

Wright, Simon

Yeo, Mr Tim

Young, rh Sir George

Zahawi, Nadhim

Tellers for the Ayes:

Anne Milton

and

Amber Rudd

NOES

Baker, Steve

Baron, Mr John

Blackman, Bob

Bone, Mr Peter

Bridgen, Andrew

Byles, Dan

Cash, Mr William

Chope, Mr Christopher

Cunningham, Mr Jim

Davies, Philip

Dobson, rh Frank

Dowd, Jim

Durkan, Mark

Edwards, Jonathan

Fabricant, Michael

Field, rh Mr Frank

Gillan, rh Mrs Cheryl

Hoey, Kate

Hollobone, Mr Philip

Hopkins, Kelvin

Kelly, Chris

Lefroy, Jeremy

Lewis, Dr Julian

Llwyd, rh Mr Elfyn

Lucas, Caroline

McDonnell, John

Nuttall, Mr David

Pawsey, Mark

Pincher, Christopher

Randall, rh Sir John

Redwood, rh Mr John

Robertson, Mr Laurence

Robinson, Mr Geoffrey

Sheerman, Mr Barry

Shepherd, Sir Richard

Skinner, Mr Dennis

Tapsell, rh Sir Peter

Turner, Mr Andrew

Tyrie, Mr Andrew

White, Chris

Williams, Hywel

Tellers for the Noes:

Mr James Gray

and

Natascha Engel

Question accordingly agreed to.

28 Apr 2014 : Column 666

28 Apr 2014 : Column 667

28 Apr 2014 : Column 668

28 Apr 2014 : Column 669

Bill read a Second time.

high speed rail (London – west midlands) bill (Money)

Queen’s recommendation signified.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of:

(a) any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of the Act, and

(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment.—(Harriett Baldwin.)

Question agreed to.

high speed rail (London – west midlands) bill (ways and means)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the making of provision about income tax, corporation tax, capital gains tax, stamp duty land tax and stamp duty reserve tax.—(Harriett Baldwin)

Question agreed to.

28 Apr 2014 : Column 670

Business without Debate

European Documents

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),

Establishing A New Schengen Evaluation Mechanism

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 11846/12, a draft Council Regulation on the establishment of an evaluation mechanism to verify the application of the Schengen acquis; and further notes the arrangements for European Parliament and national parliaments’ consideration of Schengen evaluation documents. —(Anne Milton.)

Question agreed to.

Delegated Legislation

Mr Speaker: With the leave of the House, I propose to take motions 5 to 9 together.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Taxes

That the draft International Tax Enforcement (Uruguay) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 3 March, be approved.

That the draft International Tax Enforcement (Gibraltar) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 3 March, be approved.

Capital Gains Tax

That the draft International Tax Enforcement (Turks and Caicos Islands) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 3 March, be approved.

That the draft International Tax Enforcement (Anguilla) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 3 March, be approved.

That the draft International Tax Enforcement (British Virgin Islands) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 3 March, be approved. —(Anne Milton.)

Question agreed to.

WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE

Ordered,

That:

(1) the matter of the Budget as it relates to Wales be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for its consideration;

(2) the Committee shall meet at Westminster on Wednesday 7 May at 9.30am and 2.00pm to consider the matter referred to it under paragraph (1) above; and

(3) the Chair shall interrupt proceedings at the afternoon sitting not later than two hours after their commencement at that sitting. —(Anne Milton.)

Mr Speaker: I know that Members who are leaving the Chamber will do so quickly and quietly, in deference to the hon. Member who has the Adjournment debate, because they would wish to be treated in that way in similar circumstances.

28 Apr 2014 : Column 671

Manston Airport

Motion Made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Anne Milton.)

11.35 pm

Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con): I am most grateful, Mr Speaker. Before I go any further, I congratulate the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, on taking through this evening a measure that my hon. Friend described in his peroration as being of national importance, as indeed it is. I think that the matter I am about to raise with the House, although it has perhaps not attracted the same attention as the previous business, is also of national importance.

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise an issue that is of importance not only to my constituents in North Thanet, but to those of my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys), who has been so loyal and staunch a parliamentary neighbour and who has joined me here in the Chamber tonight.

There has been an airfield at Manston in east Kent for getting on for 100 years. Manston served with distinction, and took a great deal of punishment, as a front-line airfield throughout world war two; as an RAF base post-war, it hosted American fast-jet squadrons; and to this day part of the original Ministry of Defence base remains the home of one of the country’s foremost RAF firefighting training schools. Post-war holidaymakers, with their cars, flew on Silver City from Manston to Jersey, and the dual military-commercial role became established. Manston was leased by the MOD to Seabourne Aviation in the 1980s, when the modern and friendly air terminal was built, and the freehold was sold during the 1990s. Throughout this time, and until the RAF transferred its flight to Wattisham, Manston was the home of Sea King search and rescue helicopters covering the strait of Dover. PlaneStation, EUjet and more recently Infratil, a New Zealand based company, in turn flew from or operated from Manston.

The airport was acquired at the end November 2013 by the present owner, Mrs Anne Gloag, one of the shareholders of the Stagecoach company. With strong links to transport and with the promise of a commitment to two years’ of development, that transfer of ownership was welcomed. Sadly, after less than four months, on Budget day in March, consultation on closure, following losses that were regarded by the new owner as unsustainable, was announced at the very moment that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor was informing the House of the help for regional airports that my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet and I had been pressing for.

That was, as one may imagine, rather unwelcome news; however, it quickly became apparent that there is now serious and funded interest in taking over Manston, to maintain the site, which would be extremely difficult and costly to transform for other purposes, as an airport to develop and broaden the aviation, airport-related and ancillary businesses. As we speak, that interest is the subject of talks. Neither my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet nor I can properly become involved in negotiations that clearly are a matter for legal and commercial agreement, and I would not expect my hon. Friend the Minister to become involved either at that

28 Apr 2014 : Column 672

level, but I was heartened, in a meeting with Mrs Gloag here at the House before Easter, to be assured that she was willing to discuss propositions. I naturally hope that those discussions will prove fruitful in the interests of all concerned. I would like to be able to return positively to that in a future debate.

As I have said, I believe there is not only a local, but a national interest that has to be taken into account. Locally, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet will know, there are immediately about 150 jobs at issue. Each and every one represents a family breadwinner. That is of overriding importance to my hon. Friend and me. There is also the job-creating potential of an airport that is crucial to the economy of east Kent. That potential has already helped to contribute, by its very existence, to the success of Discovery Park, which my hon. Friend has been so instrumental in promoting, following the withdrawal of a significant part of the Pfizer company from her constituency. As an important aside and visitor attraction, the Manston RAF and the Spitfire and Hurricane museums, together with the memorial to the unknown overseas airman, unveiled by Her Majesty the Queen Mother shortly before she died, represent a significant contribution to our local heritage and one that cannot be discarded.

In the national interest, Manston occupies a literally unique location. It offers proximity to the channel ports and mainland Europe, a largely over-water take-off and landing facility and, partly as a consequence, a safe diversion location. Indeed, I am advised that since the start of the consultation period, two aircraft have taken advantage of Manston as a safe haven, and I know that the airport is able to receive inbound traffic at times when London’s other airfields, within the central London traffic control zone, have been compelled to close or restrict services. With its expanded responsibility for maritime search and rescue and firefighting services, Bristow Helicopters still wishes to return to Manston to provide cover once again for the strait of Dover, one of the busiest sea lanes in the world. With its very long and abnormally wide runway, Manston has been able to accommodate Concorde in the past and more recently—in fact, very recently—the British Airways Dreamliner during her trials.

We also believe that Manston can and must be allowed to make a significant contribution to the immediate demands for additional runway capacity in the south-east. I would like my hon. Friend the Minister to consider the following. When, as Transport Secretary, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) published his airports Green Paper in 1990s, he omitted Manston from his plan. When I questioned him at that time on the Floor of the House, he said that Manston was too far from London. In the interim report on capacity in the south-east published shortly before Christmas, Sir Howard Davies also omitted Manston for the same reason. He has made the same error in measuring distance in miles from London, rather than in time.

It is a fact that east Kent is indeed 76 miles from the House of Commons, but we are now served with a good road network and, with the proposed extension of High Speed 1 from Ashford to Thanet—a project that will commence in autumn this year with the upgrading of track and signals—we are looking at a realistic under-one-hour journey. In real terms, and allowing for check-in congestion and related time-wasting activities at airports,

28 Apr 2014 : Column 673

that means that, from central London to a backside on a plane taking off, Manston will actually be closer than Heathrow.

I am not suggesting that Manston can or should be an alternative to a Boris island, an additional runway at Heathrow or any other suggestion that Sir Howard puts forward that may meet our needs in 15 or 20 years’ time. I am, however, suggesting that, alongside Luton and Stansted, Manston can help to relieve a pressure that has already seen London fall into second place behind Dubai as a major hub airport, which is costing UK Ltd business lost to Frankfurt, Schiphol and Paris Charles de Gaulle, and which we do not have the luxury of time to address. I understand that Sir Howard is reconsidering the opportunities afforded by regional airports. Manston is available immediately and it must be included in that equation.

Nor am I proposing that interlining passengers currently using London Heathrow or Gatwick should be routed through Manston, although we might well be able to take some holiday traffic to free up space at London’s two major airports. I note, however, that London Heathrow capacity that might otherwise permit passenger business is currently being used for long-haul freight from the far east.

I know that 82% of goods transported by air come into Heathrow as belly cargo in passenger aircraft, but that still leaves 18% of dedicated freight movements occupying slots that could be used for much needed additional long-haul passenger traffic if the cargo was moved to, for example, Manston airport, where we have a skilled and dedicated cargo handling team and facilities that can have goods off an aircraft and on to road or rail in short order. There are those who say that Manston’s freight handling is second to none. I therefore have a specific request. Will my hon. Friend the Minister instigate an immediate review of cargo traffic with a view to promoting, in the national interest, the release of prime slots with passenger potential from London’s airports? It has to be in the national interest to do that.

This morning the inaugural meeting of a Manston taskforce was held here in Portcullis House. In addition to the chairman of the company that owns Manston, that meeting was attended by representatives from the Departments for Transport, Work and Pensions, Communities and Local Government, and Business, Innovation and Skills, as well as the Home Office, the Skills Funding Agency, UK Trade & Investment, the local enterprise partnership, Locate in Kent, Kent county council, Thanet district council and, of course, my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet and myself. The meeting followed discussions with relevant Ministers, all of whom have been supportive.

There is good will and political cross-party unanimity at local, county, trade union and parliamentary level. There is also huge and growing local support. Last Saturday my hon. Friend and I received a petition from the Save Manston group and Why Not Manston? containing 15,000 signatures that had been gathered in just three weeks.

Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con): I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for his leadership across Thanet and all the different Government agencies pulling

28 Apr 2014 : Column 674

together the huge opportunities Manston offers. We need to highlight that this is not just about the straightforward passenger and freight opportunities; there is a wide range of business opportunities around aviation that my hon. Friend has identified as an opportunity for Manston itself. I hope the Minister will be able to respond on the opportunity that Manston specifically can offer due to its location and its potential capacity.

Sir Roger Gale: I return the compliment. My hon. Friend has been instrumental in the revitalisation of the Pfizer site as Discovery Park, and she has a proven track record in demonstrating how it is possible to attract ancillary business. We both are absolutely convinced that Manston has a viable future and that it will attract new cargo traffic and, as she says, other businesses—aviation engineering and other aviation-related businesses. We really do have to capitalise on that if we are going to make Manston work. In the local and national interest, we want to get Manston working and succeeding in the role for which it was designed and is best suited—as an airport.

In conclusion, I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his encouragement to date. I hope and still believe that, with a further shove and with the participation of a willing seller and a willing buyer, we can get to where we want to be. My hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet and I remain absolutely committed to this project and wish to state once again that we will use our best political endeavours in support of anyone who is ready and able to realise the new potential of one of the great assets of British aviation.

11.48 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) for securing this debate about the future of Manston airport. In recent years, the increasing demand for commercial air travel has heightened the need to improve the capacity and efficiency of UK airports. This is absolutely essential to meet the Government’s commitment to maintain the UK’s aviation hub status.

In the 2013 aviation policy framework, we recognised the crucial role that regional airports play in providing airport capacity and the vital contribution they can make to the growth of their local economies. Indeed, I prefer to refer to them as local international airports, rather than just regional airports. We are therefore determined that the UK continues to benefit from the services that regional airports offer, and we welcome the ambition of those that are investing in their infrastructure, increasing accessibility and facilitating more services to more destinations.

I am aware of Manston airport’s proud history, which can be traced back to the first world war. It also played a crucial role in world war two, first in supporting troops during the Dunkirk evacuation and then by playing a front-line role during the battle of Britain and providing vital air support during the D-day landings. During the war, the length and width of the runway were improved, meaning that it can now handle the largest jets, such as the new Airbus A380. Manston was even identified as a contingency runway for landings of NASA’s space shuttle programme. It was after the war

28 Apr 2014 : Column 675

and during the 1960s that the airport began to be used by commercial airlines and enjoyed relatively steady commercial air operations for several years. That allowed many people in the area to experience their first foreign holiday. However, services and passenger numbers declined steadily from the 1970s onwards, as charter operators moved to larger airports with better surface transport connections. In recent years, Manston has struggled to attract and retain consistent air passenger services, and there have been periods when the airport has had no regular services.

I am aware that Manston airport’s owners have begun a consultation with staff regarding the airport’s future, and I recognise concerns about the impact its possible closure could have on the local and regional economy. I hope that a resolution can be achieved which sustains the commercial viability of Manston airport to keep it as a going concern. I welcome the news that my hon. Friend held the first meeting of the Manston working group earlier today. The meeting brought together representatives from Thanet district council, Kent county council and the local enterprise partnership, and was supported by Departments to explore options for the airport’s future. I commend his tireless work in this regard, but whatever the result of efforts to secure such a resolution, the Government are unable to intervene directly, as we believe that UK airports and airlines operate best in a competitive and commercial environment. It is therefore for individual airports to take decisions on matters of future economic viability.

KLM’s decision to discontinue the route between Manston and Amsterdam will undeniably impact the profitability of the airport. The route was the airport’s main source of passengers and offered a connection with KLM’s international services through the airline’s Schiphol hub. The remaining passenger services offered by the airport are mainly summer charter services, and will likely offer limited air traffic. I am aware that Manston also serves as a destination for air cargo operations, as well as a number of aviation maintenance, repair and overhaul, and airframe breaking and spares recovery businesses, which operate on the airport site. As with airports, airlines must take commercial decisions regarding the routes they operate according to what is in their best interests. It is not possible for the Government to compel airlines to operate certain routes.

There have been additional concerns about the closure of the airport and the possible loss of the Lower Airspace Radar Service—LARS—unit, an information service used by some airspace users. Although closure would result in a gap in the LARS system, it would be no larger than elsewhere in the UK. More importantly, the loss of the system would not be seen as a safety-critical issue. We have been assured by the Civil Aviation Authority that the London Flight Information Service provides an appropriate alternative, and the CAA has stated that it would not support the retention of an airport or air traffic unit for LARS provision, particularly as it is unclear how costs would be covered.

As I said earlier, the UK’s aviation sector is overwhelmingly in the private sector and operates in a competitive international market. The Government support competition as an effective way to meet the interests of air passengers and other users. I restate our determination that the UK continue to benefit from the contribution that regional airports can offer. The Chancellor recently

28 Apr 2014 : Column 676

announced that applications will now be allowed for start-up aid for new air routes from UK regional airports. To be eligible, airports must handle fewer than 5 million passengers per annum and meet new European Union state aid guidelines. The Department for Transport is working with the Treasury to determine how the funding process will operate in practice, and over this summer will develop guidance for those organisations seeking to make applications for supporting air routes. Should Manston airport be eligible, we would encourage it to apply for this funding.

As hon. Members will be aware, the independent Airports Commission, chaired by Sir Howard Davies, was established to identify and recommend options to maintain this country’s status as an international hub for aviation. In preparing its interim report, the commission undertook a detailed assessment of the UK’s future aviation demand and connectivity requirements. The commission's interim report, published in December 2013, details its shortlist of long-term options for further study to increase airport capacity along with recommendations for the short term to make the best use of our existing infrastructure.

The commission has explained in the materials supporting its interim report why the expanded use of Manston airport was not selected as an option for further consideration. It concluded that Manston’s distance from London and other significant population centres meant that it was unlikely to be able to play a substantial role in meeting future passenger demand in London and the south-east in the long term, although I did hear what my hon. Friend had to say in relation to transport times as opposed to distance.

The commission also recognised that, in the short and medium term, Government do not have effective levers to redistribute traffic to less congested airports such as Manston, even if it were desirable to do so. The Government are carefully considering the recommendations in the interim report and intend to publish a response to the short-term recommendations shortly. All the shortlisted long-term options will now be the subject of more detailed analysis and consultation by the commission. To protect the integrity of the process, the Government will not comment on any of the shortlisted options.

My hon. Friend also raised the issue of landing and take-off slots in relation to freight. The allocation of slots is governed by EU airport slot regulations, which prescribe the allocation, transfer and exchange of slots at London Heathrow and other “co-ordinated” airports in the UK—that is, those airports where capacity is shown to be insufficient to meet all actual or planned airline operations.

Any decisions about how airlines use the slots allocated to them at busy airports like Heathrow are a commercial matter for those airlines to determine, and that includes freight slots. The European Commission looked at recasting the slot regulation in 2011 as part of the “better airports” package, but progress stalled in late 2012 owing to issues with other aspects of the package. However, the European Commission hopes to reinstate the slots element of the “better airports” package within the European presidency’s transport agenda, and my officials will continue to engage with the process to ensure that the UK aviation sector's interests are fully represented.

Once again, I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. The Government are committed to improving

28 Apr 2014 : Column 677

the capacity and efficiency of UK airports to maintain the UK's aviation hub status. Though fully aware of the importance that regional airports play in this, the Government are unable to intervene directly in the case of Manston. It is ultimately the responsibility of the airport owner to determine whether or not it is commercially viable.

28 Apr 2014 : Column 678

Question put and agreed to.

11.58 pm

House adjourned.