division_name: Speaker&#8217;s Statement &#8212; High Speed Rail (London &#8211; West Midlands) Bill
motion: <p class="" pid="a.557.3/1" pwmotiontext="yes">I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.</p>
  
  <p class="" pid="a.557.3/2" pwmotiontext="yes">It is 120 years since we last built a main line railway north of London. It is even longer since, in 1833, this House voted to start what is known as the west coast main line. The line was not meant to be a national route; it became one almost by accident. It was a railway built with twists and turns to placate landowners, for slow steam trains pulling open-top carriages. It is worth recalling that in 1832 Parliament rejected the initial Bill because some people objected, arguing that canals were all we would ever need for long-distance travel. Today, we ask far too much of the line. If we were talking about roads, it would be as if traffic still had to go up Watling street, as if the M1 and M6 had never been built, and we tried to solve our transport needs by just patching up old roads&#8212;a roundabout here, a bridge there&#8212;as if incremental change could make all the difference. Well, we tried that: we spent &#163;9 billion upgrading the west coast main line a decade ago, and most of that work did not even get south of Rugby. Cities and towns in the north deserve better. Scotland deserves better. Britain deserves better.</p>
  
  <p class="" pid="a.582.2/1" pwmotiontext="yes">I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from &#8220;That&#8221; to the end of the Question and add:</p>
  
  <p class="" pid="a.582.2/2" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;this House, while accepting the need to increase overall railway capacity, declines to give a second reading to the Bill because there has been inadequate opportunity for Members and those affected by the Bill to consider and respond to the report of the Assessor appointed under Standing Order 224A, which was not published until shortly 5 before the Easter recess; because assessments of the relative costs and benefits of works envisaged by the Bill have been repeatedly unconvincing and still fail to demonstrate a sound economic case for the proposed works, particularly in relation to other options; because the Secretary of State has declined to publish the Major Projects Authority report on High Speed 2, with the result that Members have been denied access to highly 10 significant evidence on the viability of the project; because the case for starting further high-speed rail construction in this country with a line from London to the West Midlands rather than in the north of England has not been convincingly made out; because the Bill will cause widespread environmental disruption to many areas of the country including areas of outstanding natural beauty; and because the Bill should be 15 preceded by proper consideration of and a strategy for integrating high-speed rail with other transport modes including the UK&#8217;s international airport hubs.&#8221;</p>
  
  <p pid="a.660.2/1" pwmotiontext="yes"><i>Question put, </i>That the amendment be made.</p>
  
  <p class="italic" pid="a.660.2/2" pwmotiontext="yes">The House divided:</p>
  
  <p pid="a.660.2/3" pwmotiontext="yes">Ayes 50, Noes 451.</p>