House of Commons · General Debate
20 June 2022 · 8 other contributors
Opened by Yvonne Fovargue Lab Wigan
Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.
Yvonne Fovargue raised concerns about other in the House of Commons. Other MPs contributed to the debate.
Key points
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said.
Opened the debate
Ms Fovargue seeks to extend the debate on the Golborne spur of HS2 Phase 2b and calls for full consideration of alternatives before making a decision. She argues that removing the Golborne link is premature, as it would deliver inferior benefits at a higher cost than upgrading existing lines. She emphasises the importance of considering long-term strategic objectives and sustainability impacts.
Ms Fovargue highlights the potential economic benefits of the Golborne link, noting that it has a benefit-cost ratio of 1.2 compared to alternatives with ratios as low as 0.7. She discusses the congestion on parts of the West Coast Main Line and suggests that upgrading this line would be more expensive than building the Golborne link. Furthermore, she emphasises concerns over service provision at the proposed new rail station in Golborne if the link is removed.
Ms Laing calls for quiet during a speech, reminding those in the Chamber to conduct conversations quietly. She does not make any substantial contribution regarding the debate topic.
There are three possible positions regarding the Golborne link: support for its consideration during the Bill’s passage, opposition due to local disruption, and a lack of information from the Government. The debate in this Chamber has been insufficient, raising suspicions about political motivations or budget cuts. There is concern over the decision's impact on regional connectivity and the west coast main line capacity.
Order was given to focus specifically on motions 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the debate rather than making a general speech. The hon. Member for Blackley and Middleton South should not range too far from these specific points.
The SNP supports the comments by Yvonne Fovargue regarding the Golborne link. The Scottish Government is dissatisfied with the current situation as it could add at least 20 minutes to journeys from Glasgow to London, weakening the business case for HS2 in Scotland. There has been no consultation or notice about the removal of the Golborne link.
The Minister's statement that supporting Yvonne Fovargue’s amendment would be fatal to the Bill is misleading. The Opposition believes in the benefits of the Golborne link for freeing up west coast main line capacity and maximising services between London and Scotland. The Government has not provided alternatives or information about them, raising doubts about their commitment to finding a solution.
Mr Stephenson addressed the shadow Minister's comments, clarifying that the amendment would not be fatal to the Bill and emphasised the importance of proceeding with HS2 to deliver benefits to Greater Manchester and the north. He noted the Union connectivity review findings on Golborne link constraints and highlighted the need for alternatives. Mr Stephenson argued that without the Golborne link, HS2 remains a £13-19 billion scheme but including it increases costs to £15-22 billion. He reiterated the government's commitment to environmental considerations and maximising benefits while looking at alternatives. He clarified procedural misunderstandings regarding Monday 6 June’s decision and refuted claims of cuts with reference to the integrated rail plan investment. Mr Stephenson invited hon. Member for Makerfield not to push her amendments to a vote.
Ms Fovargue made an eloquent case supporting the merits of the Golborne link which had been part of government proposals. She mentioned support from Members who do not support the Golborne link and acknowledged speeches on Second Reading. However, she emphasised that the Greater Manchester Combined Authority supports the Golborne link despite Warrington Council's different views.