High Speed Rail (West Midlands-Crewe) Bill

Earl of Lytton Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords & Committee: 2nd sitting : House of Lords & Committee: 2nd sitting
Thursday 12th November 2020 Grand Committee

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, the amendment is in my name and that of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. On our previous day in Committee, we discussed regular reporting and had a good debate. This amendment is slightly different, because the emphasis is on independent peer review. I remind noble Lords that this project has been around, discussed in another Parliament, for probably 10 years and things have moved on. We have learned a lot. There have been changes, which we all know about. It is probably time for Parliament to commission an independent review so that it knows what has been asked for, what will be built, how much it is going to cost and so on. In particular, we have had a lot of debate both on the Floor of the House and in the Select Committees on the environmental impact, costs, forecast revenue before and after Covid—well, not after yet—the economic impact, the engineering and the governance.

I do not wish to express any opinion on whether what we have now is good or bad. What is needed is an independent opinion—independent of government, of HS2 and of the various contractors. The experience in the Oakervee review last year was that when we tried to seek independent opinions on whatever we were looking at under the terms of reference, we found it quite difficult to identify people or organisations that were not or had not been in some way linked to HS2 or the Department for Transport. I am not being critical, but it is pretty important if one wants an independent review that those conducting it are independent and not worried about where the next contract will come from, for example.

I shall not say much more except to remind noble Lords that probably one of the most important things that I am focused on is costs. There have been three or four times when Department for Transport officials or HS2 staff have basically said that they do not know what the costs are. One HS2 executive, when asked why they had not been transparent on costs, memorably replied:

“If we’d told Parliament the real costs, they’d probably have cancelled the project.”


That is a very bad reason for going ahead with a project. I know that my noble friend Lord Adonis will say that I am trying to get it stopped, which I am not; I just think that it is time now to get a one-off, independent review so that Parliament and other people can then monitor progress and hold the Government and HS2 to account if they feel it necessary. I beg to move.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I do not have much to add to what the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, so ably said, and the amendment is largely self-explanatory. It will become apparent as further amendments are moved that there is a strong case for an amendment such as this, which is why I added my name to it.

For all the many pages written on matters of safeguards, it seems that few outside the cerebral world of the department, HS2 and its contractors are entirely convinced that HS2 Ltd will honour the spirit as opposed to the letter as it sees it. Too much of this Bill appears to rest on HS2 Ltd’s self-assessment, in which the Government as ultimate funder and promoter are a party. Costs have soared, as we have heard. Budgets for things such as land acquisitions seem to have been woefully inadequate. Timelines have become stretched; procedures have been subject to novel interpretations, and a good deal of unnecessary uncertainty and doubt about aspects of the scheme have crept in as far as those outside but affected by the scheme are concerned.

This is a scheme by the nation for the nation, and it should embed best practice and be seen to be doing so. I am pleased to support the amendment because it goes to the heart of public confidence in the manner in which this truly mighty project is being managed.

[Lord Liddle (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I oppose the amendment. I do not see any point in it whatever. It seems to me that in this country we can never make up our minds about whether we are going to do anything that is big and expensive. We have constant reviews, and we are constantly cancelling projects that have already made some advance. We have just had the independent Oakervee review of HS2, and we have just had a government decision to go ahead with the line to Manchester—although I share the worries of my noble friend Lord Adonis about what the Government are thinking about the eastern leg. However, I see no purpose in launching another review now.

My noble friend Lord Berkeley says that it is very difficult to get independent advice regarding all these concerns about costs, et cetera. Of course it is difficult to get independent advice, as the people who really know the facts are the ones who are doing the job. Unless the taxpayer is to fund an independent organisation to be critical of a scheme that Parliament has voted for and that the Government have reaffirmed and have cross-party support for, then this is a ludicrous proposal. I suppose that the answer to my noble friend’s legitimate concerns is to have an effective HS2 board. If there is an answer to this problem, it lies in having an effective board to supervise the management of the project. That is the point that the Government ought to be satisfying themselves on. I honestly do not think that this is a matter for legislation at all.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[The Earl of Lytton]

12: After Clause 58, insert the following new Clause—
“Mitigation of loss or inconvenience to owners or occupiers of land used in these works
In any matter relating to the entry on, occupying or acquiring of, private land, the nominated undertaker must take all necessary steps to mitigate the inconvenience or loss to any owner or occupier of that land.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that best practices in minimising loss or inconvenience are followed by HS2 Ltd and its contractors.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB) [V]]

My Lords, it is fortuitous that this amendment follows the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, about Amendment 7. I stumbled across this matter almost by accident in discussion with various bodies and individuals over the operation of the HS2 Ltd land acquisition regime. I am particularly indebted to Andrew Shirley of the Country Land and Business Association, of which I happen to be a member, and Kate Russell of the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers, of which I am not a member. I have also spoken to other chartered surveyor practitioners of the dark arts of compulsory purchase and compensation who have been prepared to share their experience with me. To some extent, the amendment builds on earlier amendments before Grand Committee on day one.

Kate Russell forwarded me a copy of a lengthy letter she sent on 1 June 2020 to Thomas Barry at the DfT in response to the general question—I paraphrase—what could be improved? Noble Lords will be glad that I paraphrase the seven pages of that letter, but I have permission to show it to any noble Lord who may be interested and to whom I have not already forwarded it to, but I have sent it to the Minister and those who spoke to Amendment 5. Bear in mind that this is sent by an official of a professional body, not a disaffected claimant’s agent. Even so, I would not have attached such importance to a single letter had it not encapsulated many of the same sentiments independently expressed to me by others. Please also bear in mind that phase 2a naturally follows the procedures laid down for phase 1.

Kate Russell first explained that the issues being encountered over land and property acquisition went far beyond the normal range and severity that she would have expected. In her letter, she encouraged the department to pause for reflection—a figurative pause, that is, because of course she did not ask for everything to be stopped—because of uncertainties due to design refinements, consequential to the reality of land acquisition and the implications for and disruption to claimants. She outlined the significant stress levels not only for claimants but also to professionals involved and that this has been directly due to the manner in which HS2 Ltd had been handing cases. So bad was this that the very notion of working on HS2 cases has become an issue in professional recruitment and retention, with her members seeking guidance because requirements of their tasks seemed to be at odds with professional codes of conduct.

Her letter goes on to cite several underlying causes. I truncate this, but there was the scale and timeframe of the undertaking and the implications of that, the highly impersonal manner in which the claims were handled and HS2 Ltd’s apparent desire for total consistency above all else in what is a sea of highly variable individual cases—in other words, uniformity in preference to fair balance to individual circumstances.

Of course, everyone recognises the need for value for money in these huge schemes, but the underlying sense expressed to me by another commentator was that the Treasury’s hands were around the financial throat of the department, which in turn has its around the neck of HS2 Ltd and so on, with HS2 Ltd acting in a similar manner towards its suppliers, professionals and, last of all, at the end of the supply chain, the claimants. This, in varying terms, was reflected in the views of everyone I spoke to on the point. The suggestion is that the structure and chain of command of this project is in large part to blame.

Ministers have publicly professed “compassion, fairness and respect” as objectives—or did, until the terminology changed to “compassion, dignity and respect”. When I heard the comments of noble Lords on Amendment 2, I wondered whether this terminology had been intended to refer to the graves and memorials of the long dead rather than to the pressing imperatives of the living. But the word fairness none the less seems to have disappeared.

The visible symptoms of this malaise are these: shifting the burden of proof and justification on to claimants even when it is plain that there must be a reasonable case in principle; challenging every claim line by line; the adoption of the unique HS2 Ltd “take” on matters such as injurious affection and then claiming that this is established practice; delaying payment for as long as possible by these means, or seemingly so; and claimants being driven to the point where they will give up and take whatever is offered to them because they simply cannot go on any longer. We have already mentioned the temporary access provisions which appear to have been used to occupy land first and deal with claimants’ costs at leisure. There is also the demand for professional service suppliers to adhere to these objectives as a priority over their professional rules of conduct, as I explained earlier, as well as overturning their recommendations if it suits. Finally, there is control from the centre to ensure uniformity with no delegation of any decision-making, regardless of the rigidity that results from the process.

Some of these tactics are commonplace and are easy to slant either way. For instance, if you make an internal, unminuted decision to apply a “beyond reasonable doubt” criminal proof standard to compensation claims in what should be a balance of probabilities civil test, that requires no new laws or regulations and can easily be defended as financial control, but which does lasting injustice. Similarly, if you ask for clarification for further and better details, not just once but drip-fed one after the other and each taking a turnaround time of several weeks, that can paraded as diligence. The timeframe can be endlessly spun out and, where payment is involved, delay the pay-out. Another tack when confronted with anything like a complaint is to deny everything to the point of calling black white.

These things are not unique to HS2 Ltd; they are part of the standard pattern of behaviour of large organisations which think that they are beyond the need for customer care or are too big to fail, or have only themselves or a government parent as a regulator, or believe that the noble purpose of their mission is more important than conduct, ethics and fairness, or perhaps all of these.

In our debate on Amendment 5, the Minister took a particular dislike to my reference to the perception of coercion: I did use that word. Perhaps she would prefer “strong-arm tactics” as an alternative, but this does seem to be what is going on here—not yet on an industrial scale, I suspect, but significant enough to matter and important enough for measures to be taken to reduce it, as suggested by Miss Russell. Please understand that this has nothing to do with the adequacy of the compensation claim; it is about the mode, culture and characteristics of implementation.

There are four basic principles that need to apply here. First, there has to be a high degree of accountability in the areas of ethics, fairness, transparency and professionalism, and that has to be embedded in the very culture of the organisation with a comprehensive and effective code of practice. Secondly, there has to be independent oversight and monitoring. Thirdly, there has to be an effective and accessible redress system. Fourthly, there have to be meaningful sanctions for poor practices in appropriate circumstances. The amendment would pave the way for this approach, but I acknowledge that it would require proper resourcing.

In particular among large construction enterprises and administrative organisations, there is a belief in spending much fine gold in defending the process in which they are engaged. Directors get together in order to defend the principle of their existence and what they are involved in. With that comes the question of the exercise of power for its own sake instead of making that process more efficient and transparent. I cannot count the number of times I have pointed out that this is a false philosophy that merely increases friction, although I do not doubt that it gives the impression of being busy, however fruitlessly.

With HS2 Limited I am getting the message that whatever form of corporate social responsibility is at work, it is not one that professionals or citizens universally recognise as a modern or effective duty of care or that it is confined to handling claims. The resultant delays, lack of trust, uncertainty, added disputes, blame shifting and financial loss and so on are capable of being mitigated to good effect were there, as Miss Russell suggests, a claimant strategy document that is worthy of the name, incorporating the four principles I have mentioned. Miss Russell has also told me that in September she inquired of the Department for Transport about such a strategy, having mentioned it in her letter, but she was told that it would be out “soon”, a word I have heard used so often by Government Ministers but which is then followed by no visible action, so that it has nearly lost all meaning and value. However, confirmation that this is somewhere in the pipeline does underline my general point about the need for action.

I invite the Minister simply to confirm that the production of a claimant strategy document is imminent, that it will be independently assessed and not just some internal box-ticking exercise, and that it will be available for us to scrutinise in draft at any rate before the Bill leaves this House. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)]

The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, has withdrawn from speaking to this amendment so I call the noble Lord, Lord Haselhurst.

--- Later in debate ---

My colleague Andrew Stephenson is there to help us make sure that people are being treated with the respect and dignity that we would wish and that they deserve. These concerns are not just about money or inconvenience; this is about making sure that people are treated properly. I do not agree that the amendment achieves the outcome of respect, dignity and fair treatment, but adherence to the policies that are already in place and the work that my colleague Andrew Stephenson is doing will. I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, will join me and Minister Stephenson—and any other noble Lords with an interest in land and property—to discuss these matters further, and that, on that basis, he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken; those who have been in favour of this amendment and those who think it is unnecessary. This was essentially a probing amendment—a fishing expedition, if you like—to discover the existence of or progress towards a document that I considered important.

I have noted what noble Lords said about the compensation code. I said in my opening remarks that this was not about the fact of the compensation code, and I tried to steer clear of any question of the quantum of compensation, because that is really quite outside my brief and my knowledge. I do know a fair bit about large projects, because when I worked in a public service, I had to deal with something called the A27 Folkestone-Honiton trunk road. I advise noble Lords that it has reached neither Folkestone nor Honiton, and there are large gaps on the way, but, hey-ho, that is what happens with these things. I also know very well about Part 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1973—the compensation for physical factors where no land is taken, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Haselhurst. The point here is that I had identified that the Department for Transport had something in train. I do understand that no compensation system can cover everything and no set of procedures in a large organisation can deal with every eventuality.

I am not sufficiently familiar with the process of how petitioners come to appear before the Select Committee. I do not know whether that happens after the point at which they have been in negotiation on compensation matters or beforehand in the prospect of something happening. Certainly with regard to phase 1 of HS2, I am not sure how much of the land acquisition and the acquisition of rights has actually taken place; I suspect that it is not a great deal and that a lot of design work is going on that needs to be sorted out before that can happen. The point I am getting at is that the Department for Transport seems to have admitted that it is doing something and I want to draw out the facts on that and find out what is happening, to provide some background to the reason why that was important.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for their comments. I note also what the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, said about whether the validity of these things is appropriate or not. I turn now to the comments made by the Minister. I did wonder about the question of advance payments and I accept entirely her correction. However, I would say simply that there is an issue here. I am glad that the Government are looking at ways of improving the position and that they are committed to the land and property review, but I am not sure that I am encouraged by “very shortly” as a term of art and whether it is materially better than “soon”, “presently” or whatever other terminology is used. I am particularly interested in the point made by the Minister that there is no requirement to conclude an agreement before entry, or at least that is what I understood her to say.

I will say this: if you do not settle and get an advance compensation payment before entry, you will have someone who has had the use of their land removed, with all the disruption that that entails, but who does not have the money for restructuring or anything like that. In some cases, that may be harmless and inconsequential. After all, you do not earn much by depositing money in the bank these days. In other circumstances, however, I can see that it would be absolutely mission critical for the operation that is being compensated, so that needs to be looked at closely.

I welcome the opportunity of a meeting with the noble Baroness and Mr Stephenson. With that, although I may return to this matter later on in the progress of the Bill, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 12 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Debate on whether Schedule 23 should be agreed.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB) [V]]

My Lords, given the Minister’s earlier remarks, I am delighted to provide a vehicle for what I detect she thought might be some excitement, and I see that I have a little more than an hour to do so. With a bit of luck, it will not take that long, but here goes.

Schedule 23 to the Bill makes fundamental changes to the long-established procedures for dealing with party walls, works at the line of legal property boundary and adjacent excavations, all of which are covered by the Party Wall etc. Act 1996, which I took through this House. However, the Bill does so for HS2 phase 2a purposes only.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)]

There are no questions to the Minister, so perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, might want to comment briefly on what has been said.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB) [V]]

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. Perhaps I may deal with a few points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. My understanding, having spoken to Shirley Waldron—who I mentioned earlier, and who was closely involved in Crossrail matters—is that Crossrail disapplied only Section 6 of the Party Wall etc. Act 1996; it did not disapply Sections 1 or 3, as the Bill seeks to do. She also told me in a phone conversation that the party wall matters had been completed so long ago that they could not possibly have been responsible for the current delays that have recently come to light. However, that might be only her view. I can confirm on good authority, because I checked today, that no one consulted the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors regarding the drafting of this Bill or, for that matter, the phase 1 Bill.

The noble Lord, Lord Snape, raised an interesting point about how many properties might be affected. It is difficult to know because the party wall Act provisions apply not only to party walls but to adjacent excavation and construction near to adjoining owners’ properties. Even with phase 1, in many instances the detailed design has not yet got to the point where an accurate quantification of all those affected in a densely urban area can be calculated. So I have to say that I just do not know. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, asked the Minister to report to the Committee. I am sure that there will be more to come out of this, and that point is noted.

The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, gave due praise to the operation of the party wall Act—of which I was not the architect; I was simply what is known in the trade as the parliamentary midwife of a private Bill. However, the provisions have been in existence in the metropolitan area of central London since the 1930s, and the principles of party walls have been with us since the year after the Great Fire. So in enacting legislation in 1996 that was going to apply to the whole of England and Wales, one was drawing on a cadre of very experienced specialists in central London. That experience has been rolled out across the country. It is a philosophical issue and a situation where all the provisions of the party wall Act hang together as a whole. The notification, the counternotification and all that follows, up to the conclusion of the dispute resolution procedure—the way in which it is appealed and the safeguards—are of a piece. They all interrelate. It is quite difficult to unpick bits of the Act without doing some serious mischief to the rest, and I think that that is what this Bill threatens to do.