High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill - Amendments (a), (b), (c) and (d)

Opposes HS2 project since its inception, questioning whether an instruction is the right way to proceed. Concerned that bypassing standing orders will limit constituents' opportunities for proper consultation and discussion on costs and impacts.

Raises concerns over the potential significant difference in cost and impact on communities. Believes that the Minister is not giving Parliament a proper opportunity to discuss details and make decisions due to procedural constraints.

Asked when Northern Powerhouse Rail would be complete, without indicating support or opposition.

Critiques the proposal for breaking cross-party agreement traditions and affecting east-west connectivity negatively. Emphasises concerns over decreased business activity from Birmingham to Manchester.

Asked for intervention but no specific arguments were provided in the given text.

Supports the motion despite its limitations, emphasising years of delay and lack of progress on Northern Powerhouse Rail. Calls for partnership with local leaders and a credible delivery plan.

Mr. Brereton argues that the proposed hybrid Bill is a flawed approach to delivering NPR as it does not facilitate connectivity with the existing rail network and ignores cost-effective alternatives for improved connectivity between Manchester and Liverpool.

Mr. Cash intervenes, questioning whether the examiners have been asked to look at the Bill using hybrid Bill procedures and suggests that petitions should be used to challenge the principle of the motion.

Mr. Stringer supports Mr. Brereton's position, asking if he intends to divide the House on this matter due to his principled disagreement with HS2.

Mr. Cash further intervenes, questioning the validity of paragraph 3 of the motion which seems to contradict the original principle of the Bill by introducing a new basis for proceeding with NPR.

Mr. Williamson supports Mr. Brereton's position, urging the Minister to provide reassurances regarding the concerns raised.

Stringer criticises the lack of progress on Northern Powerhouse Rail, highlighting that despite it being a Government commitment for 10 years, no design work has been done. He argues against the Prime Minister's decision to abandon HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail, stating it isolates the north of England and reduces rail capacity. Stringer also mentions economic benefits for Manchester airport and the need for integrated transport systems.

Hendrick intervenes to support Stringer's points, citing his experience on the HS2 Committee. He argues that constituency interests inflated costs and criticises the Government for scattering funds around certain places in the north of England ahead of an election.

Cash intervenes to argue against HS2, suggesting that current travel times from Stoke-on-Trent or Stafford to London are already relatively fast and questioning the necessity of further investment in high-speed rail.

Hobhouse asks whether cancelling HS2 has led to more congestion, pollution and environmental damage on roads.

Brereton questions Stringer's logic regarding compatibility with the conventional network serving Scotland, pointing out that HS2 trains are not designed to tilt and may not fit on classic networks.

Intervenes to criticise Gavin Williamson's focus on process rather than outcomes. Mark Hendrick argues that other countries efficiently complete major infrastructure projects without the hurdles faced in the UK, attributing delays and inefficiencies to nimbyism present in both Houses.

Intervenes to suggest that the Government should conclude the HS2 project's mess, restart from scratch, and initiate a new process for transparency and efficiency.

McMahon is critical of the government's decision to cancel HS2 between the Midlands and north, arguing it shortchanges northern towns. He calls for a more comprehensive approach to transport infrastructure that includes reopening closed lines and integrating various modes of transport.

Williamson supports opening up debate on HS2 to ensure broader engagement. He suggests that this should be a wider discussion with bespoke legislation.

Brereton inquires if a Labour Government would bring phase 2 of HS2 back, indicating concern over future plans.

Grundy responds to McMahon's intervention by questioning whether calling the cancellation a 'scorched earth' policy is fair, given that constituents have faced uncertainty for over a decade.

Served on both HS2 hybrid Bill Committee and Transport Committee, emphasising the importance of considering east-west connectivity alongside north-south. Acknowledges that petitioners are given ample opportunity to make representations but notes concerns about statutory undertakings not being honoured as originally presented.

Emphasised the need for reduced uncertainty among local communities regarding HS2's cancellation and proposed an amendment to address this.

Asked for reassurance about the Government's commitment to stopping the cancelled section of HS2, indicating support for clarity in the Government’s position.

Requested an intervention but details not provided.