High Speed Rail (London-West Midlands) Bill

Debate between Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 24th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I draw your Lordships’ attention to my interests as declared at the Committee stage of the Bill and earlier. The subject of the amendment was discussed in Committee and the Minister made a helpful response at that time. The issue was also raised in the Select Committee of your Lordships’ House, as it engages the private interests of many petitioners, and that committee made a strong recommendation, to which I wish to refer. We also now have the Government’s response to the Select Committee, which raises the point that I want to raise with the Minister.

The Crichel Down rules have governed the selling of surplus land following compulsory purchase for over half a century. Although there are said to be problems with them—that is perhaps a matter for another day—they are respected as the rules of the game. This issue has great importance, as there is no real accessible right of review once land has been taken, as judicial review is effectively out of the financial reach of most landowners.

The problem is that HS2 Ltd has decided that, rather than simply follow the Crichel Down rules, as has been the established practice, it will introduce alongside those additional exceptions under which it will not offer, in the first instance, land that it has compulsorily purchased back to the original landowner. These exceptions include, it says,

“where it makes sense to pool the land with adjoining ownerships in a joint disposal”.

What this might mean, of course, is that where HS2 Ltd thinks that it will be better for it financially to keep the land it no longer needs and sell it in a different parcel, it will. It will not be offered back to the owner whose land it was originally. The Lords HS2 Select Committee recognised this and recommended in its report:

“We strongly urge the Secretary of State not to add further exceptions to what is already … a long list of cases … in which the original owner will not be given first refusal to reacquire the land at its then market value. Apart from other more principled reasons, which we need not repeat, it would be odd if one Department of State had its own version of the rules”.


The Government say at paragraph 122 of their response:

“The Promoter is prepared to reconsider the additional exceptions set out in the Information Paper in the particular circumstances of each case”.


It is that phrase to which I would like a response from the Minister. Obviously, if that means that no decisions will be given in general but only in particular cases, there is no certainty for the landowner, who would have to wait each time for HS2 Ltd to decide, presumably towards the end of the time for which it needed the land, whether to keep it. HS2 Ltd would still have the power to keep any land it wanted—for example, for a development—which it would have acquired at much below the market rate. Is that fair?

HS2 Ltd has provided no details of what criteria it would use to undertake case-by-case reviews. If a case-by-case approach is used, these criteria should surely be in the public interest. That makes the case. I look forward to hearing from the Minister. If he cannot agree to review, perhaps he would be prepared to write giving examples of what criteria would be used. I beg to move.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, as I am sure the noble Lord is aware, the policy regarding the disposal of surplus land received an extensive examination by the Select Committees of both Houses with regard to individual cases, to which he referred, and more broadly when they heard from representative bodies such as the National Farmers’ Union and the Country Land and Business Association. I am sure the noble Lord has noted this, but I say for the benefit of your Lordships’ House that paragraphs 417 and 421 of the Lords Select Committee’s report set out its conclusions in detail.

The Secretary of State is under a general duty to minimise land take for the railway, whether permanently or temporarily. In general terms, any land that is surplus following construction will be disposed of in accordance with the Crichel Down rules. These rules provide for the circumstances in which land acquired by compulsory acquisition, but no longer required, will be offered back to the former owners. The rules have been developed over the course of half a century and have been endorsed by previous Governments. The basic principle is that former owners will, as a general rule, be given the first opportunity to repurchase any surplus land at current market value provided it has not materially changed in character since acquisition, such as new buildings having been built on it.

The rules set out a number of other exceptions to this general principle, which HS2 follows, but have also added two further exceptions to cater for the special circumstances of the HS2 scheme. These exceptions would allow the Secretary of State to retain land acquired for the project where a site is needed for regeneration or where it is needed for the relocation of a business directly affected by HS2. The Select Committee report recommended that the project remove these two additional exceptions. In their response, the Government have noted, and agreed to reconsider, the additional exceptions in the particular circumstances of each case.

I hope the fact that we are proposing to use a very well-established approach for this policy and have further agreed to revise that approach to make it further in line with the original policy demonstrates that this amendment is unnecessary. I hope that the noble Lord is minded to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I thank the Minister for that response. I look forward to reading it in more detail in Hansard. For the moment, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I referred to the specific addition, but I note what the noble Lord has said. I will write to him in that respect and ensure that a copy of the letter is laid in the Library of the House for the benefit of all noble Lords. I reassure noble Lords that this is an area that the Government have considered very carefully. Indeed, it has been scrutinised specifically by the Select Committees of both Houses.

I want to pick up on a couple of points that have been raised. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, asked specific questions. I will write to him in detail on some of the issues that he raised, but my understanding is that the response on Section 85 was set out in the Government’s response to the 2011 consultation, which was subsequently published in January 2012. The other issue, of environmental mitigation, is also included in the business case, as was assessed according to the department’s guidance. As I said, the noble Lord raised some specific points and I will write to him in that respect.

The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, raised the issue of the ideas that contractors may put forward. As I am sure the noble Lord is aware, contractors come under the powers in the Bill, including the limits on deviation. Contractors are also limited by the environmental statement. Within those limits, contractors will be encouraged to be innovative. Indeed, a key commitment to Parliament in the environmental minimum requirements is that we will seek to reduce the environmental effects beyond those in the environmental statement itself. That will be done by innovation, much akin to what the noble Lord suggests.

I reiterate the point that the Public Accounts Committee in the other place and the National Audit Office will continue to examine the costs of HS2 as we move into the detailed design and construction stage and more detailed cost information becomes available. I hope my detailed response demonstrates what has been done, the analysis that has been undertaken and the revisions that have been made in response to issues that have been raised, particularly in the area of the Chilterns. I hope it demonstrates to noble Lords that the tabled amendments before us this afternoon are unnecessary. I underline that these issues have been fully examined, not by one Select Committee but by two. I have already underlined the amount of time they took and detail they went into in their careful consideration. As a Government, we feel that any further cost review at this stage would serve only to delay the railway, which I am sure is not the intention of the majority of Members in your Lordships’ House. I hope that, with the detailed explanation I have given, the noble Lord is minded to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I thank all noble Lords who contributed to this brief debate. I expected to be vilified and attacked, and that all happened in due order. I have no comments to make on that—it goes with the burden of trying to stand up for things that you believe in. At least my noble friend withdrew the idea that I might be hysterical, which was only marginally worse than getting a low 2.2 for drafting when we introduced the discussions on the higher education Bill a few weeks ago.

I had a good response from the Minister on the particular questions I raised, and I thank him for that. On whether the statutory duties required under the CROW Act had been dealt with, he said he thought that they had been published. I would be grateful if we could perhaps have a further discussion on that when I have seen the letter that he will write. My impression was that they were not spelled out in the detail that I am looking for. I am sure that we will get to that point, so I am not worried. I look forward to corresponding with him on that.

The second point is on the cost of tunnelling, a question that came up several times from noble Lords. I understand the point that has been made but, as was said, I think, by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidding, to know the cost of building the whole railway is important, but it is not the only factor that we need to know. What savings have been built into the overall cost by not doing other things that would have cost more money or, indeed, less? It is that argument that we are lacking information about. If it is true that the tunnelling is providing environmental benefits, those benefits need to be taken into account in the total value for money—a point that was made. It is that issue that we do not get.

For instance, my noble friend Lord Young raised the issue of the Colne Valley, which was not part of the amendments I put down, although it could have been. He said, as has been said elsewhere, that this was independently assessed and so is okay. But when you learn that the independent assessor was a non-executive director of the Department for Transport, which authorised the review, you wonder whether that is truly independent. Again, the point is: what does that show us? If the figures provided by the promoter are correct, that is one aspect, and it is very useful. But it does not tell you what would have been the cost had it been done a different way, such as by tunnelling. If you do not cost in the environmental benefits, that is an issue.

The Minister mentioned a range of costs for different tunnels. The figure that we most often hear, and therefore the one we are using, is about £485 million—I do not want to go into this in any detail—for the extension of the tunnel from where it comes out in the AONB in the Chilterns to Wendover. It is that figure that I want to measure against the savings that would occur from the environmental benefits preserved—the lack of building of viaducts and the requirement not to build bunds and sound-proofing. That is the figure we never hear.

Lots of people who have been engaged in the process say that they have read the reports and seen the figures. They always say that it is okay, but they never tell us what the figures are. Do noble Lords not find that just a little odd? That is why I say that the public interest needs to be satisfied and why I put down these amendments. However, I am satisfied that we have had the debate that I wanted to have at this stage. I look forward to the letters from the Minister and, with that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

High Speed Rail (London–West Midlands) Bill

Debate between Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 12th January 2017 Grand Committee

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for his contributions, and the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Berkeley, for their questions. To take the final issue first, because that is quite a specific matter, I will write to the noble Lord. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, raised the issue of what had been heard from residents. I appreciate that that has been received in a positive light and that is taking place, and I hope that that addresses one of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, raised on that.

On the proposal for the duty of care, the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, said that he had read all elements of the Select Committee’s reports, and we shall of course be testing him on his verbatim knowledge of them at the end of this afternoon’s proceedings—I shall not hold him to that. I am sure that he recognises— I have said this several times, but I shall not tire of saying so—that the Select Committees in both Houses looked at this issue closely among other areas, and the proposal for a duty of care was considered.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, again rightly raised the specific issue promoted by the Country Land and Business Association in its petitions. Let me assure both noble Lords that this matter received lengthy hearings and the Government have now given more than a dozen assurances to the association in response to its concerns. The noble Lord referred specifically to the Select Committee report in this regard, as set out on pages 97 to 99. As I have said previously and will now repeat, we shall respond to those points when we publish our response to the report next week. However, notwithstanding what I have just said, there were no specific recommendations from either committee on the need for such a duty.

As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, may well know, the compensation code which I alluded to in our debates on Tuesday, is both understood and has been developed over time. It has been further refined through the Housing and Planning Act 2016. Furthermore, the Government are already working to an existing commitment, reinforced by several assurances on the formal register, to minimise likely areas of permanent and temporary land take where it is practicable to do so. We have also developed a series of environmental minimum requirements, while the code of construction practice already provides a series of protections for those who may be affected by the construction of the scheme. It is already the case that, if contractors engaged in the construction of the railway fall foul of the expected standard of reasonable care and skill, they will find themselves exposed to claims of negligence which will be actionable through the courts in the ordinary way.

To prevent the need for people to seek redress through the courts, as my noble friend Lady Buscombe mentioned in her response to the previous debate, the Government have provided an alternative remedy in the form of the role of the construction commissioner who is able to receive and deal with on an independent and impartial basis any complaints about the construction of the railway. As my noble friend has already said, the commissioner has a particular role in determining complaints that are made under the small claims scheme, which provides a simple and informal basis to recover losses of up to £10,000 for each individual claim. To emphasise that point, the construction commissioner will also be independent of the Secretary of State and any nominated undertaker appointed to construct the proposed scheme.

Wider protections are already included in the Bill, such as the enforcement of planning controls, which will rest in the ordinary way with the responsible planning authorities. We have talked during our various debates today about the important role that local planning authorities and related agencies will have as we build and construct HS2. I am sure that noble Lords will also be aware that previous hybrid Acts referred to in our debate, such as the Crossrail Act and the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act, did not include the provision of a duty of care to ensure that those affected by the construction of these projects were sufficiently protected. I hope that the noble Lord is reassured by what I have said and is therefore minded to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I thank the Minister for that full response. I think that one would be more inclined to accept it if there was a good record of engagement on the part of HS2 Ltd across the range of the piece that we have been talking about today and which I am sure was touched on last Tuesday, but of course the reality is that that is not the case. There have been too many mistakes, too many issues, too much neglect and too much arrogance in terms of assuming that people will just go along with what is being said. These are all words that have been used to me, and I am sure that they are not strange to the Minister’s ears. The point is that this is something that really does have to be handled carefully. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

High Speed Rail (London-West Midlands) Bill

Debate between Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Thursday 14th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

Of course. As I said, if there are additional questions, I will be pleased to write to noble Lords.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for her support. She said that the Liberal Democrat approach would be that of a critical friend to the Bill. It is right that in the revising nature of our Chamber we would hope that the discussions we have are always friendly, albeit a tad critical, but I understand the concerns that the noble Baroness has raised. She raised, rightly, connectivity with the rest of the network. As she will know, we are undertaking one of the largest programmes of investment in the railways. That is important. I have previously said from this Dispatch Box that the Government are investing £38 billion in the railways in the next five years.

The noble Lord, Lord Birt, raised the issue of investment generally over the next 15 or 20 years. I can certainly give him the detail that in the next five years the overall transport investment is in excess of £60 billion, in addition to the money we are spending on HS2. I hope that that underlines the Government’s commitment to the importance of transport infrastructure in the United Kingdom.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I checked with the Deputy Speaker to see whether I could come in after the completion of the Second Reading but he advised that I should interrupt now and ask my question. Therefore, I am following on from my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe. The description the Minister gave before he got to the alternative provision arrangements was that that was a matter for the House to determine, not the Government. I would be grateful if, when he writes to my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe, he could specify exactly where the precedent is that he is relying on for that. Presumably these words are not his but words of the House and the House authorities, and obviously we would like to check chapter and verse.

I might well wish to return to this later but it is my understanding that there are several precedents which suggest that what he read out was not correct; that previously in two major Bills—the Crossrail Bill and the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill—additional provisions were considered by the second House; and that on occasions, although intimations about the powers have been made, the general position appears to be that it is possible, as my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe suggested, that with an instruction the committee could consider and recommend an alternative provision. It is such an important point because the more the Minister narrows the position, the more difficult it will be for those who have suggestions to make to the Select Committee to be able to do so within the petitioning process as he has described it.

In addition, this does not seem to accord with what has been said to the public. He might wish to reflect on this when he replies. The clerks of the House have done a very good job in reaching out to those who wish to petition your Lordships’ House. There is a petitioning kit, which is a novel innovation, but it is certainly worth looking at because it is very informative. It says that,

“individuals, businesses and organisations specially and directly affected by a hybrid bill are given the opportunity to ‘petition’ either or both Houses of Parliament to seek to mitigate the effects of the bill on themselves, their business or their property”.

There is no qualification in that. That is a straight statement that mitigation can be provided. The kit explains what a petition is and says:

“A Select Committee … will be appointed to consider your petition and any other petitions deposited against the Bill … They have the power to amend the Bill, but not reject it”.

I do not understand how he can arrive at the position he has just articulated, given that and what has been said publicly. Without wishing to prolong the proceedings of the House, a lot of what has been said today has been about the confidence that people have in the House. We are in great danger of losing that.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

Part of what I am seeking to do is to provide greater clarity but, in the interests of time and of ensuring that we get a comprehensive position, I will be writing to noble Lords to detail the position exactly. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, is satisfied with that. He is right to raise this important issue, as the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, did, which requires—