My right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) has said that he supports investment in high-speed rail, and so do I. I am sure that Members on both sides of the debate would agree that the specific proposals can be improved further. Indeed, that is the subject of today’s debate.
Residents of Camden face years of disruption as a consequence of the proposals outlined today. The disruption might now be less intense than originally proposed, but the construction period will be prolonged. What consideration has been given to the feasibility of conveying construction materials by rail, as has happened during the Crossrail development, rather than by road, in order to reduce the impact on residents?
Furthermore, and incredibly, this is the fourth proposal for Unison—[Interruption.] The fourth proposals for Euston, I mean. [Interruption.] It was a Freudian slip. That is along with all the uncertainty that this situation has caused for local residents. The situation is clearly inadequate. It is vital that the Department, Network Rail and HS2 Ltd work as closely as possible with Camden Borough Council and campaigners to find a solution that works both for the railway and for local residents. Speaking as an observer of previous discussions over the past three years, I am not convinced that every effort has been made to date.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr Spellar), who is no longer in his place, noted that it was suggested in the press at the weekend that the overall number of platforms at Euston might be reduced. Careful planning to manage the disruption to existing services is essential, and contingency measures such as diverting commuter services into Crossrail should be considered. But I note that the lack of capacity on the west coast main line is also a constant and enduring source of delays and cancellations. Has there been a fundamental change in the Government’s policy, or will there still be a net gain in the number of platforms at Euston?
A number of compensation schemes have been established for people who live along the planned route, some of which have been withdrawn, and awareness of others appears to be low. The HS2 residents commissioner has said:
“It is vital that those who are eligible for the Government’s property compensation and assistance schemes get clear information and know what they are entitled to.”
Will the Minister set out for the House what support is available to residents, including those who live outside the rural support zone? When the House debated the second set of additional provisions in June, I cited the Committee’s pre-election report, which stated:
“The incoming Administration should make an early decision on whether to proceed with Phase Two and, if it decides to proceed, quickly finalise the Phase Two route.”
The precedents set by the Government and the Committee for phase 1 are of direct relevance to phase 2, particularly on compensation.
Some three months on, the Government’s position is no clearer. We have been told that they will set out the way forward on phase 2 later this year, but of course that is not the same thing as confirmation of the route. I urge the Minister in the strongest possible terms to return to this House, I hope before the end of the year, to provide some clarity on phase 2 and the introduction of the relevant legislation.
I noted that the Minister said that these changes would result in some small cost variances. I would be grateful if he could tell the House what is the net cost impact of the changes proposed in the motion.
We remain supportive of the additional provision process, and indeed of this important project. I assure the House that the Opposition will subject the Bill to line-by-line scrutiny when it enters that Committee stage.
6.10 pm