High Speed Rail (London-West Midlands) Bill

Lord Framlingham Excerpts

Thursday 14th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Framlingham (Con)]

My Lords, I have been sitting here feeling increasingly isolated, and I am very sorry to introduce a discordant note, but I suppose that someone has to, otherwise it is terribly one-sided. I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, is not going to be critical of those who oppose the idea, because I totally oppose it. Just one word on his speech: it is all very well to plant new things, and I know a bit about that, but they are not the same as established landscapes, old trees and old things. That is what people are concerned about. New is good in many ways, and we are all for it, but old has an awful lot going for it as well.

I do not know whether we will give the Bill an unopposed Second Reading. It did not get an unopposed Second Reading down in the House of Commons. Traditionally, we do, so I suppose that we will, but I am sorry about that, because I am always anxious to register my concern about this sort of thing and it is sad not to be able to.

I have not spoken to anybody outside the Westminster bubble who is in favour of the scheme, when it is put to them. The reasons for it are, perhaps, to do with capacity, although that is uncertain. The idea of spending all this money just to get quickly to Birmingham seems ridiculous to most people. There is a touch of the Emperor’s new clothes about the whole thing. HS2 fantasises about the advantages it will bring and the huge disadvantages it will smoothly overcome. It is ridiculously expensive in time, money and potential damage to the environment. I believe that it is really ill-conceived at this time.

It will cost £55 billion, with the first phase finishing, it is hoped, in 2026 and the second phase in 2034—a total of 18 years’ disruption. All to get from London to Birmingham a little more quickly, which I do not think is a particularly good idea. We are not France; we are not Germany; we are not a big country. We do not have to sprint from here to there. The noble Lord, Lord Prescott, said earlier that by the time the train had got up speed from Manchester to Leeds, I think it was, it would be slowing down again. How ridiculous can one get? It will have a potentially disastrous effect on the countryside, on the Chilterns and the precious area of outstanding natural beauty there.

So far, there have been 21,833 responses to the proposals, and it does not speak well for HS2’s handling of them, or its future operations, that the parliamentary ombudsman stated in a report that,

“overall HS2 Ltd’s actions fell below the reasonable standards we would expect, so much so that they constituted maladministration”.

We have heard today from several speakers who support the Bill in principle, but then went on to worry about it, including the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry and the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor. Those worries have been magnified and multiplied from one end of the country to the other. Inexplicably, and sadly, no consideration has been given to sensible and professionally produced alternative schemes, such as High Speed UK, which is cheaper, provides much better connectivity to stations throughout the country and avoids sensitive landscape areas. Why have those not been considered? Perhaps the Minister can tell us in his response.

So many issues do not seem to have been resolved. The trains may well not be able to travel at the speeds predicted. I cite a report from some time ago:

“In the research, completed last year, Prof Peter Woodward, one of the world’s leading experts in the geo-engineering of railways, found that the speeds proposed by HS2—faster than any other high-speed line in the world—would create ‘critical track velocity effects’ and ‘significant issues’ with track instability … He said that speeds as high as those planned by HS2 could cause ‘rapid deterioration of the track, ballast and sub-ballast, including possible derailment and ground failure’”.

The report continued:

“The disclosures are the latest blow to the scheme, viewed by many even in the rail industry as unnecessary. Last week, it emerged that the National Audit Office, which has been fiercely critical of HS2, was to begin a third review”.

I have already briefly mentioned connectivity. It appears that HS2 will extend to a number of major centres, but will leave out many of our existing stations that people currently use. If you live near one of these new stations, fine, but if not you will have to get to them, or suffer the service you are left with at your local station. I feel that I am missing something somewhere.

The House of Commons voted the Bill through with a massive majority but, in Committee, barely looked at its 69 clauses and 32 schedules—I am sure that noble Lords have all seen the Bill. They were barely touched on. That leaves quite a job for your Lordships’ House to do. It is a mystery to me why that happened.

How far would £55 billion go in other ways—in lengthening platforms, extending and improving trains, upgrading existing lines, or doing sensible things with the connections in the north? The noble Lord, Lord Prescott, talked about Liverpool to Hull; how much good could that kind of money do? There are so many ways in which that kind of money could be spent. We must remember that our own House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee reported just a year ago that:

“The Government has yet to make a convincing case for proceeding with the project”.

Yet proceeding it is.

If the Government do proceed with this scheme, we must insist that they do so with minimum detriment to the landscape through which the route passes. Everything possible must be done to preserve and protect the countryside, particularly the Chilterns and the area of outstanding natural beauty. If a long tunnel is needed to protect this area, a properly constructed tunnel of necessary length must be provided. Whatever the cost—taken in the context of this total spend of £55 billion, and for the sake of future generations—this must be insisted upon. Perhaps the Minister can reassure us on this point. There is no point doing half or three-quarters of a job; let us do a proper job for future generations.

I conclude by repeating that I simply cannot believe that a sensible nation is embarking on such an ill thought out and foolhardy scheme. If it succeeds in getting through this House, I wish it well, but I fear the worst. Whatever happens, the environment and the people on its route must not be made to suffer for such a venture.

Online Safety Bill [HL]

Lord Framlingham Excerpts

Friday 11th December 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, on getting to this stage. The fact that it has taken her five years demonstrates why the amendments and the clause are so important. If it takes five years—of course, the Bill still has some way to go before it becomes legislation—that gives us some indication of how long it will take to change subsequently. Therefore, it is important that whatever legislation is passed on technology matters, not just on this important issue of online safety of children but in any area, is future proofed. As a Parliament, we are very good at reacting to a crisis which is occurring now or occurred a year or 18 months ago. Our parliamentary processes necessarily take time. On something like this, where it has been necessary for a Private Member to act, it clearly takes even longer.

Unless we future-proof to recognise the rapidly changing nature of technology, all the provisions that I hope we will agree to here today will be of no value. Technology changes much too rapidly, and that is why we need to future-proof legislation. When the Minister gives what I trust will be a positive response to the Bill, she must encourage her colleagues in government departments, when they draft legislation that relates to technology, to include future-proofing provisions.

[Lord Framlingham (Con)]

My Lords, I shall be brief. First, I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, on her efforts: she has been amazingly courageous and tenacious to get the Bill as far as this. The noble Lord said that it has taken five years. How many young children have had their lives really altered for the worse in those five years simply because we in both Houses of Parliament have not managed to give them the protection they deserve?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Shields]

I said December 2016. As the Prime Minister said in response to this issue, we will make sure that we protect children in whatever way we think is necessary—whether that is law or not, I will not say at this stage—but we will make sure that that remains in place.

[Lord Framlingham]

Governments always want everything to be perfect, and this is a rapidly moving target in a very modern world. The point has now been made twice, and I make it again, that these amendments are designed not to make the system safe but to make it safer. At this stage, anything we can do to make it safer should be done.

[Baroness Shields]

I could not agree more with my noble friend.

--- Later in debate ---

I am not against the principle of trying to make sure that things are filtered, as the Bill seeks to do. Filters provide a very good initial lock but they are not the perfect solution—they are not going to cover everything and we need to do better than that. The Bill may cause a lot of chaos in the internet service provider world and it may distract from the much more important issue of making sure that those who run the websites—the only people who really know what they are delivering—have an incentive to behave in the right way.

[Lord Framlingham]

The noble Earl obviously knows a huge amount about the subject and he is speaking in a way that I do not completely understand. At what stage does he think we should legislate? How long do we wait to get it as right as he would like it to be?

[The Earl of Erroll]

Being realistic, I suspect that the Minister’s timetable in the real world is probably very sensible. You can legislate hastily but then there will be huge arguments about it. It is a bit like the Digital Economy Act, which was rushed through. The measures in that to try to prevent people unlawfully downloading copyrighted material were not going to work in the real world. They caused a lot of chaos and, as a result, nothing happened because it was not possible to produce sensible regulations that would work and satisfy the courts and everyone else. Eventually, something got going but it is not brilliant, and it took the pressure off everyone to produce something that might have been a little better. Therefore, the Minister is probably being very sensible on this.

[Lord Framlingham]

Does the noble Earl accept that there is a huge difference between the problems that might arise from copyright and those that arise from damaged children?

[The Earl of Erroll]

I totally accept that. I was just using it as an example of where legislation has gone through in haste with very good intentions but it has not worked because it has not been thought through technically. Checking age is quite complex—for various reasons I prefer the word “checking” to “verification”. There are lots of ways of doing it but it is difficult to produce something that is workable in the real world. Credit cards are not the answer, and the net neutrality principle coming out of Europe will also cause problems. All sorts of things like that have to be taken into account. Getting it right in the long term for children’s safety is much more important than trying to rush through something that looks good. We should remember the saying “Legislate in haste and repent at leisure”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Framlingham]

I am sorry to keep picking the noble Earl’s brain, but for the purposes of today’s debate, is there any intrinsic difference between the gambling industry and the pornography industry?

[The Earl of Erroll]

Yes, there is, interestingly enough. It is to do with the law. Because of anti-money laundering, the gambling industry has to do client checks; it has to behave almost as if it were a bank. As a result, companies have to be able to prove the identity of the person. For various social reasons, it is felt that it is unfair for people to have to declare their identity publicly if they are looking at adult content which it is perfectly legal to watch, or buying alcohol and so on. For instance, if a Muslim buys alcohol and the mosque gets to know about it because their identity had to be declared and retained publicly, they might suffer greatly. Equally, if a Cabinet Minister happens to view some pornography or adult material, that is perfectly legal but, if certain newspapers were to find out, the Minister’s career would be destroyed overnight. This is the challenge and the difference. We have to remember that this stuff is legal for the over-18s, but there are social pressures and public opinion, which we may or may not agree with, so I think that we have to protect people’s privacy.

[Lord Framlingham]

I am sorry to ask again. The example that has been given mentions embarrassment, but it is not technically illegal.

[The Earl of Erroll]

The example I have given is one that is career-destroying. The knock-on effect of that could involve all sorts of family repercussions to do with children in school because Daddy or Mummy has just had their career destroyed. We sometimes forget the effect on a family as the result of something that, while it may be regarded by some as socially unacceptable, is perfectly legal. We need to think about that at the parliamentary level.

Economic Case for HS2 (Economic Affairs Committee Report)

Lord Framlingham Excerpts

Wednesday 16th September 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Framlingham (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, in the remarks he has just made. We cannot possibly know what the world will look like in the years ahead.

I am not in favour of HS2. It has been called a vanity project. I am not sure that those who thought up the scheme are vain, but they are misguided, and in terms of our national transport network they have got their priorities very wrong. Some of our greatest engineering achievements were, at their inception, seen as overambitious and dauntingly difficult but turned out when completed to have been far-sighted and invaluable. Thomas Telford’s famous suspension bridge over the Menai Straits meant that the people of the island of Anglesey no longer had to row against the turbulent tides to reach the mainland and wait for a very low tide to urge their cattle to swim across to market.

Bazalgette’s sewers saved Londoners not just from a terrible stench in high summer but from the spreading of disease. London’s Tube system fulfilled the need for its citizens to move around the city and has been copied all over the world. Our motorway system, the Channel Tunnel and even Crossrail can be seen as necessary projects and our ports, airports and canals, with their breath-taking aqueducts, were all built to satisfy a need and, in their own way, have stood the test of time.

Where all those mighty projects differ from HS2 is that they were conceived, designed and built to satisfy an obvious and acknowledged need—a serious problem demanding a solution. HS2 has been dreamt up simply on the assumption that there is a pressing need for passengers to travel at speeds of up to 250 miles per hour, and a need to improve capacity, which is seriously disputed, at a cost of £50 billion. History has acknowledged and acclaimed the foresight and ingenuity of the men and women who pioneered the projects I mentioned, as well as recognising their intrinsic value. History will not be kind to those who, if it is pursued, push through this silly scheme. Who really wants to travel at 250 miles per hour over such relatively short distances? It is unnecessary and ridiculously expensive. The time saved is not worth all the cost and upheaval. The money would be much better spent on improving communications in the north, as has been mentioned repeatedly, or on improving stations and infrastructure generally.

Your Lordships may gather from these remarks that HS2 does not have my wholehearted approval, but my main reason for speaking today is to highlight the damage the scheme may do to our environment and to the countryside through which it will be driven. The countryside—trees, ancient woodland and areas of outstanding natural beauty—gets no mention in this report, yet it is hugely implicated in the economics of HS2. If HS2 does not proceed, our countryside is safe. If it goes ahead, it is in serious danger and, if we care, the cost of protecting it will be well worth while.

Perhaps I may deal, albeit briefly, with just one section of the proposed line: that through the Chilterns. The proposed route of HS2 bisects the county of Buckinghamshire diagonally across its length for 60 kilometres, from south-east to north-west, which is about one-third of the total route between London and Birmingham. Buckinghamshire is the county most adversely affected by HS2 and the route crosses under and over the Chilterns area of outstanding natural beauty. It severs irreplaceable ancient woodland, dissects a nationally important historic landscape, detaches heritage assets from their rural setting and disrupts intact medieval landscapes and areas of great biodiversity and value. HS2 has no tangible benefits for the people of Buckinghamshire.

A feasibility study by Peter Brett Associates of an alternative tunnelling option under the Chilterns has been commissioned by a number of the local authorities affected. Its findings were presented to the House of Commons Select Committee on 13 July this year by a team led by Mr Ray Payne. The main conclusion of the study is that a long tunnel for the transit of the Chilterns by HS2 is technically feasible and would protect the designated landscape of the Chilterns area of outstanding natural beauty and the green belt, where appropriate. It would mean that no houses would have to be demolished and that there would be no landfilling of surplus soil, minimal disturbance of the area of outstanding natural beauty and minimal impact on communities, businesses and residents. The extra cost of construction is estimated at £480 million, which in a budget of £50 billion—and given the huge advantages it brings—must be acceptable. In fact I understand that an alternative long-tunnel proposal, similar to the Chilterns long tunnel, has been proposed more recently. It is referred to by HS2 Ltd as T3i, follows the same route as the Government’s scheme and has been priced by HS2 Ltd at an extra £350 million. For the reasons that I have set out, if we must have HS2 then the solution to the Chilterns problem is a long tunnel.

At all levels of government, we constantly proclaim our affection for the environment, our appreciation of all it does and our determination to protect it. Here, on the grandest platform of development possible, we have the chance to prove that we really care, or to admit that those are just so many hollow words. If this scheme deserves to be carried out, it deserves to be carried out as sympathetically as possible to the countryside through which it will run and to the people whose lives will be affected by it.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Framlingham Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd June 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Framlingham (Con)]

My Lords, I want to speak about a subject that is not specifically mentioned in the Queen’s Speech but is very relevant to large parts of it: trees, particularly urban trees.

Trees give us their grace and beauty. They improve our air quality, particularly in inner cities, by taking in our carbon dioxide and giving us back their oxygen. They give us shelter and shade, act as barriers to noise and dust, resist flooding, cool our cities and even help to calm traffic. In short, they massively improve the quality of our lives. Whether in building new housing developments, large or small, giving Battersea power station a new lease of life, or massive projects such as HS2 and the huge environmental impact that they are bound to have, it is vital that protecting existing trees and the careful selection, planting and establishment of new ones is given the highest possible priority.

In all this, the Government will not be short of advice and pressure. The Woodland Trust is determined not just to plant new woodlands but to protect old and particularly ancient woodlands from threats posed by schemes such as HS2. The Trees and Design Action Group, TDAG, is a charity embracing a host of organisations and companies interested and qualified in the planting and care of trees in the urban landscape. The Natural Capital Committee advises the Government on large-scale projects and the national macroeconomic benefits derived from trees. The Arboricultural Association has in its members a wealth of knowledge about the practical aspects of planting and caring for trees and is often the first to spot the signs of disease. The Forestry Commission has now to wear many more hats than that of pure forestry. Just a few days ago, at a London tree awards ceremony, I heard an excellent presentation by its director, Ian Gambles, on the London i-Tree eco project. Time does not permit me to elaborate, but this is the largest tree survey of its kind in the world and is expected to have a transformational impact on how London’s urban forest is recognised and managed.

This brings me to the question of which Minister has responsibility for urban trees. In answer to a Parliamentary Question that I put down earlier this year I was told that:

“No single Government department is responsible for the planting of trees in the urban environment”.

I believe that the time has come to draw all these threads together and consider having an individual Minister responsible for urban trees.

I want to say a word about biosecurity and quarantine, as was touched on briefly by the noble Duke, the Duke of Somerset. The ravages of Dutch elm disease, imported on logs from Canada in the 1960s, robbed us of all our great elm trees. Ash dieback is now threatening to have the same terrible effect, with diseased imported trees again involved and no remedy in sight except the depressing policy of “managed decline”. We have other problems of foreign origin threatening our native trees, such as the oak processionary moth. A disease of plane trees is now rampant in France. I invite you to imagine London, its streets, squares and parks, without its London plane trees. Box blight, of South American origin, is causing the ripping apart of some of our most famous gardens and has now been found in our woodlands. In southern Italy, a bacterial disease that hails from the Americas is sweeping through thousands of acres of olives.

Modern trading in and transporting of plants has made the threat to our trees frightening. There are two things that we can and must do. First, we must grow more of what we can grow. Secondly, and more importantly, we must put in place with the utmost urgency a strict quarantine regime that will prevent plants being imported and immediately sold, scattered and planted all over the country. In answer to another Parliamentary Question that I put down last July I was told by Defra that the number of plants, bare root and container, imported into the UK in 2012-13 was 2.5 million. By 2013-14—that is the planting season—this had risen to 3 million, an increase of half a million trees and plants. Unlike our European neighbours, where most of our imported trees come from, we are an island, with all the biosecurity advantages that that gives us. We should use them to the full. I acknowledge that there are some existing rules and regulations, but they are far from watertight. We must have a sensible quarantine system in place without delay. We do not have to devise it from scratch: some nurseries are already implementing their own. Allied to this, we must have rigidly enforced traceability so that any infected plants can rapidly be tracked down and destroyed.

I acknowledge that the nation’s tree budget is not in the same league as defence, the NHS or education, but it must be substantial and it must be enough. It seems inevitable that, as our country grows, growth now is everything: we must build, build, build. But if we want to keep the heart of our country for future generations and keep the hearts of our towns and cities, we must have the wisdom, the foresight and the funding to plant, plant, plant: to plant our trees and, having planted, care for them.

Marriages and Civil Partnerships (Approved Premises) (Amendment) Regulations 2011

Lord Framlingham Excerpts

Thursday 15th December 2011 Lords Chamber

Moving on to my next point, when I last spoke on this subject, when we really were debating an issue of conscience in this House, I told the House that in my family I have a daughter who is in a gay relationship. She and her partner have a civil partnership and I am fortunate enough to have two wonderful and very energetic grandsons, who are part of that very nuclear indeed family, if I can be forgiven that phrase. However, it goes further than that. The reason I mention my daughter is that she is also a lawyer. She is a solicitor who, among her work, takes a great deal of interest and has much activity in all aspects of the law that reflect the lives of gay men and lesbian women. Therefore, naturally, I have turned to my daughter Eve to see if she can help with what the view of gay lawyers and the gay community is on this issue. Gay lawyers believe this: “No one is demanding that religious institutions hold civil partnerships; no one is saying that they must honour any gay couple’s request to celebrate their civil partnerships within the traditions of that religion. What this is about is allowing religious civil partnerships if everyone involved is in agreement”. That is the overwhelming view of lawyers who advise gay people, sometimes other gay people, and that is what these provisions say.

[Lord Framlingham]

The noble Lord will appreciate that the debate today has been legalistic—because this is obviously what this Chamber does—but the ramifications outside the Chamber may not be legalistic. On the point that the noble Lord is making about allowing, will he agree that to allow, although it is not to encourage or force on people, can sometimes have that effect. That is my concern having seen that many Acts of Parliament have had effects that we were not aware of. I believe that if we are not careful, this one will bring the kind of pressure to bear on Church of England priests that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn has indicated.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew]

I respectfully but absolutely reject the contention that has just been made. Indeed, it is somewhat similar to the contention made by my noble friend Lord Cormack, who spent a great number of years as a very distinguished Member of another place. He often had to wrestle between his principles and his interests, as all Members of Parliament do, and I doubt that he found it more difficult than any Church of England or other priest or other religious official would find it to stick to his conscience when his conscience told him what was right, particularly when supported by the institution to which he belongs.

Finally, my noble friend Lord Lester mentioned the decision of the House of Lords as a court in Pepper v Hart. That is the one matter that was omitted earlier and is of very great importance. In the event of somebody being prepared to take the financial risk of bringing what in reality would be a completely hopeless case before the courts, it is beyond peradventure that the statement that we know will be made by my noble friend Lord Henley from the Front Bench today, because we have been given a trail of it, would be cited in court and would be extremely influential in the determination of any ambiguity. I therefore respectfully suggest to your Lordships that we have actually taken a great deal of time today, albeit in a very interesting debate, in discussing something that is really not a problem at all.