← Back to House of Commons Debates
High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill - Amendments (a), (b), (c) and (d)
21 May 2024
Lead MP
Huw Merriman
Debate Type
Bill Debate
Tags
TransportParliamentary Procedure
Other Contributors: 26
At a Glance
Huw Merriman raised concerns about high speed rail (crewe - manchester) bill - amendments (a), (b), (c) and (d) in the House of Commons. Other MPs contributed to the debate.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Lead Contributor
Opened the debate
The amendment proposes to instruct the Select Committee to amend the Bill by removing certain railway provisions between specified locations in Cheshire. This is done to focus on a high-speed railway from Millington and Rostherne to Manchester Piccadilly Station, without new stations except for Manchester Piccadilly and Manchester Airport. The purpose of this amendment is to streamline the bill process and limit petitioning against the principle aspects already determined by the House.
Bill Cash
Con
Stone
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.
Gavin Williamson
Con
Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge
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.
Graham Stringer
Lab
Blackley and Middleton South
Asked when Northern Powerhouse Rail would be complete, without indicating support or opposition.
Mark Hendrick
Lab Co-op
Preston
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.
Jim McMahon
Lab Co-op
Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton
Asked for intervention but no specific arguments were provided in the given text.
Stephen Morgan
Lab
Portsmouth South
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.
Jack Brereton
Con
Stoke-on-Trent North
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.
Bill Cash
Con
Stone
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.
Graham Stringer
Lab
Blackley and Middleton South
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.
Bill Cash
Con
Stone
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.
Gavin Williamson
Con
Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge
Mr. Williamson supports Mr. Brereton's position, urging the Minister to provide reassurances regarding the concerns raised.
Graham Stringer
Lab
Blackley and Middleton South
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.
Mark Hendrick
Lab Co-op
Preston
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.
Wera Hobhouse
Lib Dem
Bath
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.
Mark Hendrick
Lab Co-op
Preston
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.
Wera Hobhouse
Lib Dem
Bath
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.
Jim McMahon
Lab Co-op
Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton
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.
Gavin Williamson
Con
Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge
Williamson supports opening up debate on HS2 to ensure broader engagement. He suggests that this should be a wider discussion with bespoke legislation.
Jack Brereton
Con
Stoke-on-Trent South
Brereton inquires if a Labour Government would bring phase 2 of HS2 back, indicating concern over future plans.
James Grundy
Con
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.
Grahame Morris
Lab
Easington
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.
Jack Brereton
Lab
Stoke-on-Trent South
Emphasised the need for reduced uncertainty among local communities regarding HS2's cancellation and proposed an amendment to address this.
Gavin Williamson
Con
South Staffordshire
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.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About House of Commons Debates
House of Commons debates take place in the main chamber of the House of Commons. These debates cover a wide range of topics including government policy, legislation, and current affairs. MPs from all parties can participate, question ministers, and hold the government accountable for its decisions.