High Speed Rail (West Midlands–Crewe) Bill

Debate between Lord Haselhurst and Lord Tunnicliffe

Report stage (Hansard) & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords & Report stage
Monday 30th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Haselhurst (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I must admire the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for his persistence and consistency. As has already been noted, he is fundamentally opposed to the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, already referred to the masterly summing up of the procedural situation by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, who chaired the committee on which I had the honour to sit. It was not just a matter of precedent, although, as a matter of precedence, it is for the House to examine as a separate entity, and not just as an issue buried inside one Bill, whether the current procedure is adjudged by noble Lords to be ideal and whether dealing with it as a matter buried inside one Bill is a proper way of addressing people’s concerns about the procedure, in so far as those concerns exist.

There was plenty of opportunity in the other place for the matters that are now being raised to be considered, and it was therefore not appropriate, under our existing procedure, for the second House to address those things. There is also a practical problem. If one introduces a further step, whether by additional provision or by a TWAO, fresh uncertainty is brought into the case. Landowners might well be affected by any change undertaken in that way, so, in fairness to them, you would have to go back and rehearse the arguments all over again.

I have dealt with only this one case of the HS2 Bill; nevertheless, I think that the procedure is perfectly sound, giving every opportunity for cases to be heard. My goodness, we should be proud as a Parliament that it is possible for people to bring their grievance or petition and have it heard in both Houses of Parliament. Through that process, there is plenty of opportunity for any glaring injustices to be dealt with.

The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, referred to the depot or railhead at Stone and the village of Woore. I am subject to correction on this, but I am not aware that, through our proceedings in the Select Committee, those who represented the interests regarding Stone made the suggestion that they should have the opportunity, by means of a TWAO, for further discussion of the route; nor do I recall any such suggestion from those who represented Woore. The committee visited Woore and saw the situation for itself. Therefore, quite honestly I cannot see that this amendment does anything other than contribute to the determination of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, to delay and possibly wreck what is, in my view, an important piece of legislation.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I have tried to consider this amendment not as a debate over whether the route should go ahead, but on its merits. I found it difficult to understand, but it seemed that the essential objective was to allow petitioners to make further submissions—a second bite at the cherry, as it were.

Reading the committee’s report, I am content that the petitioners have been adequately dealt with. The point of contention is that applications relating to additional provisions should not be admitted. The case for not admitting additional provisions is set out in Appendix 2 of the Select Committee report, which gives details of the precedent set by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Walker, when he was chairman of the House of Lords Select Committee on the High Speed Rail (London-West Midlands) Bill. I will quote from the appendix, which contains a statement made by the chair of the Select Committee on the High Speed Rail (West Midlands-Crewe) Bill. Paragraph 7 says:

“Those adversely affected by an additional provision ordered in the House of Lords as the second house would be denied that opportunity in the Commons as the first house unless the bill were to be returned to a Select Committee of the House of Commons with all the delays and additional expense that this would give rise to. As a matter of practical reality, almost every additional provision which solves or mitigates difficulties for one group of residents along the line raises new difficulties for another group. That is why petitions against additional provisions are permitted and why parliamentary practice regards it as unfair for additional provisions to be introduced in the House of Lords as the second house.”


The statement goes on to say that the committee considered the applicability of a Transport and Works Act order and came to the conclusion that it was highly related to the concept of additional provisions and that it should not be admitted.

We support the current parliamentary practice and, if my noble friend Lord Berkeley were to seek to divide the House, he would not receive support from our Benches. I would have hoped that what might come out of this would be some reflection by the Government and the House to make the procedures and customs of the House on hybrid Bills clearer. Nevertheless, we think that they are clear enough to reject this amendment.