Member News
By Sam Macrory - 11th July 2011
There’s nothing wrong with being a Nimby
Geoffrey Robinson MP
It’s a north-south issue but not a simple left-right one – and the strife over high-speed rail within the Conservative Party is pitting the wealthy shires against recession-hit metropolitan areas hungry for growth, finds Sam Macrory.
Performing an effective government u-turn, as Kenneth Clarke will confirm, requires purpose and panache. Pulling off the manoeuvre at 225 miles per hour, however, is rather more challenging. The possibility of another emergency application of the handbrake will become clearer as the increasingly vexing issue of the government’s £32bn plans for a high-speed rail network (HS2) edges towards a final decision at the close of the year. Current proposals would see a first section opening around 2025 linking London and Birmingham, before continuing construction to both Leeds and Manchester.
Away from Parliament, the battle rages. Boris Johnson, mayor of London, dismisses the plans as “inadequate”, Birmingham City Council celebrates a once-in-a-generation chance to bridge the North-South divide, one ex-Lib Dem councillor was re-elected in May on a No-to-HS2 ticket, while Midlands-based businesses are enthusiastic.
The debate will shift to Parliament once the official consultation on the proposed route, due to close later this month, is digested. Ian Jordan, a project sponsor at HS2 Ltd, describes “one of the biggest public consultations ever undertaken – around 30,000 people have visited our events and spoken to experts from HS2 Ltd and DfT on a wide range of issues”. Yet despite this, the consultation has been dismissed by some sceptics as a ‘marketing exercise’. That view was reinforced when the prime minister recently confirmed that he is “committed to HS2 – it’s right that Britain gets on board the high-speed rail revolution”. This vision is shared by Philip Hammond, the transport secretary.
There the parliamentary consensus ends. At a packed Westminster Hall debate in March, MPs of all parties argued over HS2. But with the proposed route passing through traditionally true blue counties, it is a group of 20 or so Conservative MPs, including a collection of government ministers, who were most eager to air grievances.
Amongst them is Andrea Leadsom, backbench MP for Northampton South. In May, I met Leadsom as she patrolled the roadshow portakabins in Upper Boddington. As locals tried out the demonstration of how a nearby high-speed rail train might sound – quieter than birdsong, according to the sound booth – and gathered reams of the literature on offer, Leadsom confronted the smartly-dressed HS2 employees. “You do say ‘if’, not ‘when’ the line is built, don’t you?” Leadsom asks, but that’s a relatively easy question. When one staffer explains the Chinese have a very good high-speed rail network, a local replies that the “Chinese are communists and won’t give their people a say”.
On a medium-paced train back to London, Leadsom argues that the roadshows are “essential, and getting people to understand what is talked about is really important”. “A lot of people are so committed against the plans that they won’t engage – but they need to express their anger. This is not paying lip service.”
Settling their arguments is the first challenge for HS2 opponents. Chris White, Tory MP for Warwick and Leamington, who happens to be on the same train, identifies the main problem for those against HS2. “The key is to get away from the Nimby arguments,” he states, with his submission to the consultation arguing that each job created by HS2 “will cost the taxpayer around £425,000”.
Geoffrey Robinson, Labour MP for Coventry North West, a key figure in the battle against HS2, agrees. “There’s nothing wrong with being a Nimby, openly and absolutely. Representing your constituency is a key part of being an MP. But public knowledge of the staggering cost is vital. This is one of the worst thought-through programmes I have ever seen, and on a scale I have never seen. That’s where it will be won or lost and the message doesn’t seem to be getting through yet.”
For now, however, opponents of HS2 are dismissed, in the words of Cheshire-based Tory MP Graham Evans, as “a very small group of people from a tiny slither of one of the wealthiest areas in the country who are seeking to thwart a major infrastructure project that would be of huge benefit to the whole country. They may be good at getting angry letters into the Banbury Guardian, but they have no broad basis of support across the country.”
The next problem for the No camp is how to proceed at Westminster. Leadsom believes “less than 100 MPs have given more than two minutes’ thought to HS2”, and if that figure remains – and Labour backs a policy which it introduced in office – then the plans would survive a Commons vote. “If we were to call a debate it could undermine the consultation and the transport select committee inquiry,” Leadsom adds, an opinion shared by Chris White.
Iain Stewart, Tory MP for Milton Keynes South, and a member of the transport select committee, agrees. “There would be so many unknowns that it wouldn’t mean anything,” he argues. “There is a need to explain this properly – and the committee is commissioning our own independent study into the business case. I want to give this a fair wind – and we have to be objective about it.”
However, Geoffrey Robinson believes the issue should be debated in the Commons chamber as part of the consultative process. “We went to the backbench business committee, and my case for putting it on the floor of the House and having a vote was well received,” he explains. “Andrea didn’t want to do it, but it would be much better for her to register a vote. The whips would respect her for it. A vote could guide and inform the consultative process. People are finding reasons not to take the difficult course.”
A vote would also smoke out the more prominent opponents to the current line. Cheryl Gillan, MP for Amersham, and Welsh secretary, preferred not to comment when I contacted her office, but she has previously confirmed that she would vote against the proposed route. However, by supporting the concept in principle she would, presumably, avoid the need to resign – a similar equation no doubt being weighed up by fellow ministers David Lidington, Dominic Grieve, and whip Michael Fabricant.
Regardless of their intentions, Robinson recognises that to win any vote, he must first continue “trying very hard to convince the Labour leadership” to drop its support. “I don’t think Gordon [Brown] would be upset if we ditch the policy; we came out for it without much thought, and the numbers – the cost-benefit ratio – have now changed so much,” he argues, making the case for investing in existing lines. “I’m told implausibly that the chancellor is very keen on train-sets, and the prime minister seems to think this will solve the nation’s regional disparity, but this is a gross waste of human and capital resources. I just can’t believe it will ever go through the Treasury.”
However, Graham Evans argues that HS2 would free up capacity elsewhere and, if not built, would leave the UK “with a rail network that is jammed full… our economy will simply be unable to compete globally”. Like Leadsom, Evans is “a little worried that a large number of MPs don’t seem to be actively engaged in the HS2 debate right now”, and he wants louder support. “They are perhaps being too quiet,” he argues. “It allows the tiny minority of opponents, who are extremely vocal, to appear to have a lot more support than they actually have in reality.”
Nevertheless, Evans believes a vote, if held, would be won, arguing that “the three main parties all fought the general election on manifestos supporting high-speed rail, and a clear majority exists in the House of Commons”.
Soon all MPs will be dragged into the HS2 debate. This Wednesday sees Labour MP Susan Elan Jones’ Westminster Hall debate on the ‘Benefits of High Speed Rail’, but for now Leadsom insists that all MPs must review HS2 plans with “an open mind, do their own homework, and form their own opinions”. “There’s a number in Parliament who haven’t read all the documents; this is the opportunity for colleagues to say what they think.”
Not for the first time, however, the government has made clear what it thinks. Performing a u-turn on its flagship infrastructure policy is unthinkable, isn’t it?
Article Comments
Ahead of Susan Elan Jones' Westminster Hall debate on Wednesday, The Campaign to Protect Rural England would urge MPs to read the Right Lines Charter, launched in April 2011.
The Charter was developed by CPRE and is now supported by over a dozen national organisations. It sets out four core principles 'for doing High Speed Rail well' to achieve the best long-term outcomes for the country, the climate, communities and the countryside. We believe that the current proposals for High Speed 2 fall well short of the Charter principles and have been challenging the government to do better.
The Charter is available at www.rightlines.org.uk.
The Campaign to Protect Rural England
11th Jul 2011 at 1:46 pm
Have your say...
Please enter your comments below.