High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill (Instruction) (No. 3) Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: Department for Transport

High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill (Instruction) (No. 3)

James Grundy Excerpts
Tuesday 21st May 2024

(6 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jim McMahon Portrait Jim McMahon
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

In the end, it would be for the Labour Government to assess what they inherit at that point, but does that not make the case for not having a scorched-earth policy of completely derailing what could have been HS2 by selling off the lands and the assets that were purchased to free up that route in the way this Government are currently proposing?

James Grundy Portrait James Grundy (Leigh) (Con)
- Hansard - -

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Jim McMahon Portrait Jim McMahon
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I will, although I am conscious of time, Madam Deputy Speaker.

James Grundy Portrait James Grundy
- Hansard - -

The hon. Gentleman calls it a scorched-earth policy. I declare my interest as somebody whose family farm is affected by the proposed route of HS2 phase 2b, but ultimately people such my own family and the community I live in have been suffering for over a decade with uncertainty about whether the project would go ahead. He calls it scorched earth, but is it not only fair that people get their life back after having that uncertainty for so long?

Jim McMahon Portrait Jim McMahon
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Any functioning Government should be able to balance the need to involve local people in decisions that affect their day-to-day lives, providing certainty about the future and being able to get vital infrastructure investments for the country off the ground. It should not be a trade-off between one or the other, where people’s livelihoods and lives are left in the air for years and years, only for the project to be taken away. In the end, nobody wins, do they? People cannot get the time back that they wasted being stressed about the impact because they were not properly consulted and engaged, only to have it scrapped overnight—and for what? It is about involving people in the right time in the right decisions, so that they have agency in the process.

I will bring my remarks to a conclusion with this: if London did not have to choose between its sub-regional investment and its national investment, why on earth should the north of England?