High Speed 2 Limited was created by the previous Government in January 2009 to look at the feasibility of, and business case for, a new high-speed rail line between London and the West Midlands.

HS2 Limited delivered a report to Ministers at the end of 2009 which was published in March 2010 alongside the previous Government’s Command Paper on high-speed rail. The route proposed in HS2's report cuts through virginal Warwickshire countryside, including the Kenilworth and Southam constituency.

My view on high-speed rail is as follows:

I support the principle of a high-speed rail network in Britain, of which a link between London and Birmingham must be a part, because of its potential to persuade travellers out of cars and planes and onto trains, reducing carbon emissions. Faster journey times by rail provide a real and better alternative to environmentally-unfriendly short-haul flights and, consequently, a good argument against a third runway at Heathrow. These benefits can only be achieved if the high-speed rail network does three things:

• it reaches much further north than Birmingham;
• it connects directly to the existing high-speed rail link to the Channel Tunnel; and
• it connects directly to Heathrow.

So, with these conditions, and assuming that the cost-benefit analysis remains persuasive, I support high-speed rail in principle.

However, I do not think the proposed route is the right one. A new high-speed rail track should follow the route of an existing transport corridor, for example the M1, to reach the Midlands from London. The argument against appears to be that in order for the trains to travel at the required speeds, the track must be as straight as possible—too straight to follow the curves of the M1, for example. But that begs the question as to why the required speed has to be so high? Could a slightly reduced speed along the line permit a different alignment of the route, which would follow an existing transport corridor? We need to know, and to have the relevant information on the relationship between speed, the curvature of the line and journey time saved, to enable us to make a sensible argument against the previousGovernment's proposed route. It goes without saying that following an existing transport corridor is far preferable to cutting through unspoiled countryside because the impact of increased noise, vibration and other disruption will be less severe for those living and working alongside existing motorways or railway lines.

I am working with the campaign groups set up along the high-speed rail line in my constituency to make the case strongly to Ministers for a different route.