Across the world our major competitors are investing in high speed rail. When Labour was in government, we were determined that Britain should not be left behind in this race for faster connectivity. That’s why we invested in reducing journey times – building a brand new high speed line between London and the Channel Tunnel but also improving speed on existing routes through electrification and modern trains.
The plans we set out in government for further new high speed rail lines held out the prospect of bringing the west Midlands within 50 minutes of London, and journey times of less than 80 minutes to Leeds and Manchester. And at the same time resolving the severe overcrowding already being experienced by passengers on the existing north-south mainlines without the same level of the disruption that upgrading the existing routes would entail.
Ed Miliband and I remain strong supporters of ensuring that the benefits of faster journey times can be enjoyed by the whole of the country, not just the southeast. As a Merseyside MP, I understand the potential benefits for our northern cities of faster journey times to London and on to the rest of Europe. And if we can bring journey times to Scotland down to just three and a half hours, rail will become genuinely competitive with aviation, with all the environmental benefits that will bring.
That strong economic case for reducing journey times and tackling congestion on our rail network will be the clear starting point for the transport policy review which will get underway this month. This is Labour’s most significant review of our policies for 20 years. It is an incredibly important moment for our party and the only positive opportunity presented to us by opposition. The role of organisations such as Progress will be critical to facilitating debate and dialogue across the movement – as well as helping us to reach out to the public, especially beyond our traditional supporters. That’s why I welcome the decision by Progress to engage so actively with the transport policy review and press the case for a clear restatement of Labour’s commitment to high speed rail. The views of everyone who has backed the campaign, signed the petition, passed a CLP motion or tweeted their support will be listened to in our review.
If our policy review is to help us reconnect to those parts of the electorate that didn’t support us at the last election then it is critical that it is not only a genuine review but also clearly seen to be genuine. That’s why I have said that we do not go into the transport review with policies ruled in or out. A party that secures 29 per cent of the vote at a general election is a party that should start its process of renewal by listening. So while I am clear about the principle of bringing our cities closer together, it’s important that we never confuse principle and policy. The precise transport policies and that we take into the next election must await the conclusion of our review. It’s also vital as we work to regain our economic credibility that we do not rush to make major spending commitments so many years in advance of the likely date of the next election. For these reasons I have not at this stage made a clear unambiguous commitment to the precise current plan on the table, High Speed 2, which would mean a spending commitment of £32 billion after the next election. However, after our policy review and before the next election, we will bring forward a comprehensive policy on the future of rail. I have no doubt that whatever precise set of policies on rail that we go into the next election with, the principle of faster journey times between our major cities will be at its heart.
In the meantime we will be exposing the Tory-led government’s hypocrisy on rail. They say they are committed to high speed rail as a way of closing the north-south divide but choose to legislate only for a line from London to the west Midlands. They say they want to reduce journey times, yet have scaled back our plans for electrification and new trains. They say they are committed to travelling by rail, yet are allowing fares to rocket, by over 30 per cent across the spending period on some key commuter routes, putting travelling by train out of the reach of many.
As our transport policy review continues, I urge all party members to have their say – not just on how best to achieve faster journey times across the whole country but also how to ensure that travelling by rail is affordable by the many and not just the few.
Learn more about Progress’ Labour 4 High Speed 2 campaign
Maria, interesting piece. The trouble is, our time in power was an pathetic series of missed opportunities. Take electrification, which we only started to think about when the dreadful ruth kelly was transport minister. If we’re ruling nothing out, we really have to look at recreating an integrated reail network, and that can only mean some sort of renationalisation. With integration, we can develop lines – electrifying the Midland Main Line, Great Western and so on, and cascade older trains to other services. with reintegration we can begin to look at a sensible pricing policy, because at the moment, it doesn’t matter how many trains there are per hour brtween Liverpool and London, say, when you get charged a punitive penalty fare for taking the wrong one. The over riding theme of our transport review must focus on integration, not competition. You can have inter modal competition – that is between railways and airlines, coaches and cars, but no amount of money spent on dreadful consultancies can deliver competition within modes. Until we understand this, all other parts of the review are a waste of time
Cool ! & renationalised Double Cool !
As currently proposed it will take the lawns of middle England and the rolling meadows of the landed gentry. What’s not to like?
Labours transport policy has been pretty poor and lacked any leadership or serious thinking, part of the problem was the roundabout of ministers at the department for transport. Lord Adonis was minister for a short period of time but left a big impact, his policy ideas were well thought through and he was regarded highly within the rail industry in particular. Also notice how Hammond has only tinkered with Adonis plans not completely changed them. High speed 2 should have been built along time ago, but mess of privatisation, Railtrack/Network rail and the chronic under investment in transport in Britain has left us behind the rest of Europe. I would like too see more long term thinking form Labour and a commitment to improve investment in other transport schemes and not allow HS2 to suck up all the money.
I am disappointed to see SPEED being the driver here. The thirst for speed promotes more unnecessary travel, over longer distances and therefore increases C02 emissions and adding to social breakdown. It also takes no account of transfer times at either end and the fact you can work on a train and communication technology should be the priority in reducing carbon footprint. It is not a good thing to do this – to have sustainable economic growth people need investment in local connectivity – affordable and sustainable local transport for local jobs is the way forward. HS2 is a Fast Train for Fat Cats. It is carbon neutral by the Government’s own admission and that does not take into account the construction phase. How can any socialist group condone spending £750 million this parliament and £34.7 billion on this one line, which is as polluting as car or plane travel, and has no stations? This IS THE WRONG PROPOSAL, we can not afford to run with a flawed proposal of this magnitude at the expense of £1200 per family when we can least afford it and sacrifice our productive farmland, countryside and environment. Please rethink and fast.
We all want an efficient, low carbon transport system. However pledging to spend £32 billion on High Speed 2 is not the answer. The national debt is massive and spending cuts are affecting us all. Labour need to sell themselves as a safe pair of hands for the economy. A massively expensive, controversial ultra high speed railway is not the right policy to be supporting at the moment. David Cameron is looking out of his depth, use high speed 2 as another nail in his coffin.