Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Andrea Leadsom (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 31 March 2011. It occurred during Adjournment debate and Backbench debate on High-Speed Rail.


High-Speed Rail

I agree with my hon. Friend that it is very unusual for us to disagree. The reality is that we all share the same goal: to regenerate our economy and to provide good value for money to the taxpayer. What we are arguing about is how we achieve that. Surely my hon. Friend would agree that HS2 is not the only possible means by which to achieve that regeneration. We have to look at what gives us the best value for money. Up to 70% of the new jobs created by HS2 will benefit London, where Old Oak Common is believed to be the best location for regeneration. I am sure that many hon. Members across the House do not feel that regeneration benefits to London represent good value for money. In fact, research on capital expenditure in the wider economy suggests that the cost of creating one job in the first phase is about four times the cost of capital expenditure in the wider economy. Again, I urge the Department for Transport to consider whether the project will create jobs. Would it be better to spend the money elsewhere and get four times the number of jobs in the wider economy?


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
526 c154-5WH 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
Westminster Hall
Subjects
Construction Finance Environment protection Forecasts Railways Passengers High Speed Two High Speed 2 line High Speed Two Action Alliance
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk