division_name: High Speed Rail (West Midlands - Crewe) Bill
motion: <p class="indent" pid="a728.3/3" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;upgrading Britain&#8217;s rail infrastructure is a key part of this Government&#8217;s long-term economic plan&#8221;.&#8212;[Official Report, <phrase class="date" code="2018-04-28">28 April</phrase> 2014; Vol. 579, c. 567.]</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="a728.3/5" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;we will be electrifying more than 800 miles of line throughout the country&#8221;.&#8212;[Official Report, <phrase class="date" code="2018-04-28">28 April</phrase> 2014; Vol. 579, c. 561.]</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="a735.0/2" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;this House, while recognising the increasing need for additional north-south rail line capacity to relieve congestion on the West Coast Main Line south of the Midlands and to improve connectivity between major cities and with London, declines to give the High Speed Rail (West Midlands - Crewe) Bill a Second Reading because (1) there are better ways to address any rail capacity issues north of the Midlands, (2) the line set out in the Bill is routed through unspoiled countryside unnecessarily damaging the environment including wildlife habitats, ancient woodlands and waterways, fails to connect via HS2 Phase 1 with HS1, the Channel Tunnel and the European continent, fails to connect directly through HS2 Phase 1 with potential airport hubs for London and the south-east of England, and fails to connect directly to existing major mainline stations and the existing rail network, (3) the Bill provides inadequate compensation to those blighted by the route and those whose property is subject to compulsory purchase orders, (4) the Bill fails to provide for sufficient public transport to disperse HS2 passengers disembarking at London Euston, and (5) the Bill does not implement a more environmentally sympathetic, better integrated, and more cost-effective route, such as the route originally proposed by Arup which would have used existing transport corridors minimising environmental damage and reducing costs by around &#163;10 billion, and which would have connected directly with HS1 and the continent, London Heathrow Airport, Birmingham International Airport, and major conurbations.&#8221;</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="a747.0/5" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;I am clear that I do not want people to lose out as a result of this&#8221;&#8212;[Official Report, <phrase class="date" code="2018-07-17">17 July</phrase> 2017; Vol. 627, c. 674.]</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="a747.0/7" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;my hon. Friend the Rail Minister is determined to see that fair and comprehensive compensation for those directly affected by the route is paid, and it will be paid as if HS2 did not exist, plus the 10% and reasonable moving costs.&#8221;&#8212;[Official Report, <phrase class="date" code="2018-10-11">11 October</phrase> 2017; Vol. 629, c. 328.]</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="a749.1/4" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;serious risk of fraud, corruption and error&#8221;</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="a750.0/4" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;delays, secrecy, broken promises, and poor management.&#8221;</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="a750.0/10" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;impact adversely on the conservation of the special places&#8221;</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="a750.0/12" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;affecting both the experience of our visitors and the lives and livelihoods of our agricultural and residential tenants.&#8221;</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="a751.1/4" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;set HS2 Ltd a schedule for achieving delivery readiness that was too ambitious&#8221;,</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="a751.1/6" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;There is a risk that the combined impact of cost and schedule pressures result in reduced programme scope and lower the benefit cost ratio.&#8221;</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="a751.1/8" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;Effective integration of High Speed 2 with the wider UK rail system is challenging and poses risks to value for money&#8221;.</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="a751.1/10" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;at a much earlier stage of development than phase 1&#8221;,</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="a751.1/12" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;unachievable unless significant, urgent and often substantial action is taken.&#8221;</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="a751.1/16" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;of failing to provide full and accurate information to those responsible for holding it to account&#8221;</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="a751.1/18" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;does not have in place the basic controls needed to protect public money.&#8221;</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="a751.1/20" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;to understand the risks to the successful delivery of the programme&#8221;.</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="a752.1/13" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;Stone constituency will suffer loss or damage to 11 ancient woodlands, totalling 8.9 ha of loss. Whitmore Wood will suffer the greatest single loss of ancient woodland on the entire HS2 route. Tunnelling must be considered to avoid this loss.&#8221;</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="a758.0/3" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;has the weakest economic case of all projects&#8221;</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="a761.2/7" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;bottom line is that while talent is spread evenly in our country, opportunity isn&#8217;t&#8221;.</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="a767.0/5" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;Detailed work and consultation is currently being undertaken on options for the development of the HS2 Crewe Hub, with the potential for a HS2 service at Stoke.&#8221;</p>
  
  <p class="italic" pid="a786.0/4" pwmotiontext="yes">The House divided:</p>
  
  <p pid="a786.0/5" pwmotiontext="yes">Ayes 295, Noes 12.</p>