Earlier this week, the Department for Transport issued a written statement, to say that Justine Greening will talk to MPs about HS2 on 21st of November. A week later on 28th November, we’ll be having a Lobby Day at Parliament to discuss the HS2 plans.
If you are concerned about HS2, please contact your MP and ask him or her to attend these events.
Written statement by the Secretary of State: The Secretary of State for Transport (Justine Greening): As the House will know, since taking up office as Secretary of State, a key early priority for me is to make a decision on the way forward following the Government’s recent consultation on high speed rail (HS2).
My Department received around 55,000 responses to the consultation and an analysis of them has been undertaken. I am being provided with detailed information on the issues raised. This will provide me with extensive evidence in respect of all the issues that will affect my decision.
A number of colleagues have understandably requested meetings regarding HS2 and I believe it is important that that there should be an opportunity for me to hear directly from MPs on their views about HS2. Given that the consultation has closed, due process means it would not be proper for me to respond to any substantive points that are made at this meeting.
I wish to place on record that I will be providing MPs with an opportunity for such a meeting. I have scheduled this meeting for 21 November and have written to all members to ask them if they wish to attend. The meeting will take place in the Palace of Westminster. In the interests of transparency, I will arrange for a transcript to be made available, as a public record of the proceedings.
The Department for Transport have also announced a Triennial Review of HS2 Ltd. they said the review has two aims:
- to provide a robust challenge of the continuing need for this NDPB – both its functions and form; and,
- if it is agreed that it should remain as an NDPB, to review the control and governance arrangements in place to ensure that the public body is complying with recognised principles of good corporate governance.
They also invited contributions to the review, by contacting the Departmentfor Transport or email@example.com.
I realize I’m an American, and thus will not lose a penny if HS2 is built, but I don’t know why any sane person would oppose HSR, especially quasi-futuristic HSR in the form of 400kph+ rail.
England would be at the head of the pack, the forefront of speed. An English equivalent of Siemens, Alstom, Talgo/Renfe, etc is definitely needed to export HSR to Commonwealth nations.
So whether it’s $50 billion or $200 billion, it’s vital. The least you could do is to support it.
You are welcome to buy our fabuous countryside home – but you would be the only one as it’s 270 meters from the track.
A typically gung ho comment from an American cousin – we all know how well the US economy is doing currently, so of course we’re likely to listen to your advice!
Perhaps if a proper consultation on the best route for HSR had been done then most of the UK popoulation who are struggling to pay their bills currently would feel a little better about the investment of our tax money. But the man in the street won’t be able to afford the fares – or get on in any of the towns and villages that are worst affected. Ho hum
I applaud the openness and transparency of the Secretary of State and the opportunity this provides for MP’s to advise her of the impact. We have all pointed out the obvious flaws in the proposed HS2 on all fronts and these have been acknowledged by the Transport Select Committee. I would like to point out that a significant sum of taxpayers money in excess of £ 20 m has been spent by HS”2 Limited in arriving on the now discredited route. This expenditure which did not include an environmental appraisal was a fundamentally flawed approach. It also lacked any form of impact assessment on the communities to be affected. I would ask that in her review the Secretary of State gives more consideration to the communities affected whether it is in my back yard or someone elses and I would rather see more spent on HS2 to reflect a caring approach to communities than a cheaper alternative that rides rough shod over communities. This is not about rich people in the south protecting their lawns or jobs in the north but about real people affected by the route who cannot afforsd to move and communities blighted forever. The route should follow existing transport corridors where possible and suitable environmental protection provided to people affected. Thanks