High Speed Rail (West Midlands — Crewe) Bill — 30 Jan 2018 at 18:58

Andrew Bridgen MP, North West Leicestershire voted in the minority (No).

“upgrading Britain’s rail infrastructure is a key part of this Government’s long-term economic plan”.-[Official Report, 28 April 2014; Vol. 579, c. 567.]
“we will be electrifying more than 800 miles of line throughout the country”.-[Official Report, 28 April 2014; Vol. 579, c. 561.]
“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 £10 billion, and which would have connected directly with HS1 and the continent, London Heathrow Airport, Birmingham International Airport, and major conurbations.”
“I am clear that I do not want people to lose out as a result of this”-[Official Report, 17 July 2017; Vol. 627, c. 674.]
“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.”-[Official Report, 11 October 2017; Vol. 629, c. 328.]
“serious risk of fraud, corruption and error”
“delays, secrecy, broken promises, and poor management.”
“impact adversely on the conservation of the special places”
“affecting both the experience of our visitors and the lives and livelihoods of our agricultural and residential tenants.”
“set HS2 Ltd a schedule for achieving delivery readiness that was too ambitious”,
“There is a risk that the combined impact of cost and schedule pressures result in reduced programme scope and lower the benefit cost ratio.”
“Effective integration of High Speed 2 with the wider UK rail system is challenging and poses risks to value for money”.
“at a much earlier stage of development than phase 1”,
“unachievable unless significant, urgent and often substantial action is taken.”
“of failing to provide full and accurate information to those responsible for holding it to account”
“does not have in place the basic controls needed to protect public money.”
“to understand the risks to the successful delivery of the programme”.
“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.”
“has the weakest economic case of all projects”
“bottom line is that while talent is spread evenly in our country, opportunity isn’t”.
“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.”

The House divided:

Ayes 295, Noes 12.

Debate in Parliament |

Party Summary

Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.

What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.

What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.

What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.

PartyMajority (Aye)Minority (No)BothTurnout
Con268 (+2 tell) 6 (+1 tell)087.4%
DUP8 0080.0%
Green0 10100.0%
Independent1 00100.0%
Lab13 205.7%
LDem5 0041.7%
PC0 3 (+1 tell)0100.0%
Total:295 12051.2%

Rebel Voters - sorted by party

MPs for which their vote in this division differed from the majority vote of their party. You can see all votes in this division, or every eligible MP who could have voted in this division

Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote

Andrew BridgenNorth West LeicestershireCon (front bench)no
Bill CashStoneCon (front bench)no
Michael FabricantLichfieldCon (front bench)no
Cheryl GillanChesham and AmershamCon (front bench)no
Philip HolloboneKetteringCon (front bench)no
Adam HollowayGraveshamCon (front bench)no
Jeremy LefroyStaffordCon (front bench)tellno
Kevin BarronRother ValleyLab (minister)no
Jim CunninghamCoventry SouthLabno

About the Project

The Public Whip is a not-for-profit, open source website created in 2003 by Francis Irving and Julian Todd and now run by Bairwell Ltd.

There are lots of plans afoot, including extensive redevelopment of the site and plans for new functionality. To keep up with what's happening, please check out the blog. We're working on updating all the contact details throughout the site, but if you'd like to talk to us about the project, please email [email protected]

The Whip on the Web

Advertisement - Helping keeping PublicWhip alive