Local MP’s Speak out on HS2

Christopher Pincher and Michael Fabricant hand the Secretary of State for Transport letters calling for better compensation for properties affected by HS2

Two local MP’s, Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) and Michael Fabricant (Lichfield), called for the maximum compensation for all residents affected by the proposed HS2 route in Parliament yesterday.

Michael Fabricant said, “The Queen’s Speech also included the High Speed 2 Bill, in fact, there will be two Bills.  I generally support the paving Bill, because it will make funds available to compensate people who are now suffering from blight.  But the main Bill will be a hybrid Bill and I suspect it will reach Third Reading only after the next general election.  That Bill will determine how and where HS2 will be constructed.

“HS2, as formulated, is causing an unnatural disaster in Staffordshire, and terrible problems in other counties—such as yours, Mr Speaker.

“It almost seems that the route of HS2 has been deliberately designed to be as damaging as possible to rural England.  That cannot be right.  I am not one of those who oppose HS2 in principle, for the simple reason that the west coast main line—as anybody who uses it will know—is the most congested line in Europe.  Anyone who has waited at Euston railway station knows that the slightest problem—whether it be signal failure, a fault on the line or a broken down train —will cause delays of three to five hours.  At least at Euston station one is under cover.  At Lichfield Trent Valley station, we do not have cover, so unless one is under the railway bridge one is exposed to rain and everything else while waiting for a train.  The west coast main line is working at 100% capacity.  I therefore accept that we need two extra railway lines to connect north and south.

“I have to say that the Government did themselves no favours in 2010 when they argued that the reason for HS2 was to shave five minutes off the journey from Birmingham to London.  That is not the reason for HS2.  They did themselves no favours when they argued that time on a train is dead time and valueless.  A very senior person in the Department for Transport—I dare not mention his name—said to me two or three weeks ago, “Michael, I see people on trains working on computers.  Myself, I just stare out of the window and look at the cows.”  The point is that even that activity is valuable time.  No, the reason for HS2 is the north-south capacity problem on the west coast main line.  I therefore accept the principle that we need HS2, but boy could it have been done in a worse way than how it is now being done?  No, it could not.

“We have chosen a route that carves a devastating line through some of Britain’s most beautiful countryside.  The biggest irony of all is that in opposition, we opposed the Labour route, and the Labour route is the one we have adopted.  In opposition, we said that we should adopt the route that the consulting engineers Arup proposed, which would use an existing transport corridor as they do in Europe.  It would go up either the M1 or the M40 and then follow the line of the M6 and go into central Birmingham that way and northwards.  But no, we adopted the Adonis plan.  By the most wonderful trick of irony that we sometimes see in politics in this place, I believe that it is now official Labour party policy to use that route we supported in opposition.  The Opposition policy, whether Labour or Conservative, is the route that I support.  Why?  It is not because I am being a nimby, but simply because it will do far less damage to the environment.  Thousands of homes are blighted by the route that HS2 is currently taking.

“The Prime Minister has said—I mentioned it earlier when I intervened on my right hon. Friend Mrs Gillan, that the Government will be generous in their compensation.  They have to be and they should be, and we must hold the Prime Minister to account.”

Christopher Pincher intervened, “Will my hon. Friend give way?”

Michael Fabricant replied, “I am very happy to give way to my hon. Friend, my next-door neighbour from Tamworth.”

Christopher Pincher said, “I am obliged to my hon. Friend, who is my next-door neighbour in Lichfield.  He is right to say that the Prime Minister has said that the compensation scheme must be generous.  Does he agree that it must also be swift?  We both have constituents, as do you Mr Speaker, whose homes and lives are blighted now.  As much as the scheme needs to be generous, it needs to be swift to deliver fairness for them.”

Michael Fabricant replied, “My hon. Friend is absolutely right.  Their homes are not just blighted now; they have been blighted for three years, even since this God-forsaken route was published.  I know elderly people who want to downsize, but cannot sell their homes.  They are now, one might say, asset rich, but very cash poor.  They cannot afford the homes they live in as they are retired, and they cannot sell them because they are blighted.  It is essential that the Government are generous and swift in their compensation.  I welcome the paving Bill, because it will, I hope, enable swift compensation.  The Government are currently conducting a compensation consultation on phase 2.  I do not know whether you responded to the phase 1 consultation, Mr Speaker, but I did.  It was very tightly worded to such a degree that in the end I began to ignore the questions being asked, because I thought they were completely wrong.  The phase 2 consultation has been formulated much more openly and satisfactorily.

“I have been trying to find out from the Department for Transport whether, when it finally reaches a conclusion on the phase 1 and phase 2 compensation consultations, the compensation packages will be the same.  I certainly hope that they will be, because it would be grossly unfair if people living south of Lichfield were treated differently.  Incidentally, I am in a unique position because phase 1 ends in the Lichfield constituency and phase 2 begins there.  A former chairman of the Conservative party, now chairman of the BBC, might have described that as a double whammy.

“As my hon. Friend Christopher Pincher pointed out, this route is blighting homes, it is blighting lives, and it is blighting the environment.  The HS2 policy, as it stands, is not a Conservative policy in the pure, theoretical sense of what conservatism is all about.  We need to think carefully, not about whether we need HS2, but about how we should execute the project.  Otherwise, many people will think that in adopting Labour’s route, proposed by Lord Adonis, the Government have betrayed the vote that they cast in 2010.”