High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 1—Reimbursement of local authorities for expenses and lost business rate revenue resulting from HS2—

‘(1) The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and the Secretary of State for Transport shall conduct an assessment of costs incurred by local authorities that arise directly and indirectly from the construction and future operation of HS2, including staff costs, and shall ensure that such additional funding as is required to reimburse local authorities for those costs is made available.

(2) To the extent that such additional funding is not made available through service level agreements, the Secretary of State for Transport shall make the additional funding available through other means of local authority funding within six months of the end of the relevant financial year.

(3) The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government shall appoint an independent auditor to assess the extent of any shortfall in local authority revenue attributable to closure of or movement of businesses and consequential diminution in business rates.

(4) The Secretary of State for Transport shall establish a mechanism whereby any such shortfall shall be made good within six months of the end of the relevant financial year.’

This new clause is intended to give statutory enforceability to the Department for Transport’s intention to reimburse local authorities for costs consequential on the construction of HS2, and to ensure that there is compensation for lost business rate revenue.

New clause 2—Reimbursement of local authorities for damage to highways resulting from HS2 construction—

‘The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and the Secretary of State for Transport shall conduct six-monthly assessments of the amounts required to repair and make good highways in each county following construction of HS2 Phase One, and shall ensure that such additional funding as is required to meet those amounts is made available to local authorities.’

This new clause is intended to give statutory enforceability to the Department for Transport’s intention to reimburse local authorities for highways repair costs consequential on the construction of HS2.

New clause 3—Amount of funds allocated to the Business and Local Economy Fund and Community and Environments Fund—

‘The Secretary of State for Transport shall allocate a sum of £150,000,000 to the funds established to support business and local economy and community and environment initiatives to mitigate and address the effects of HS2 construction.’

This new clause is intended to increase the amounts allocated by the Department for Transport to the Business and Local Economy Fund and the Community and Environment Fund from £30m to £150m.

New clause 4—Compensation procedures—

‘(1) The Secretary of State for Transport shall ensure that included within contested valuation procedures for claimants under statutory or discretionary HS2 compensation schemes are processes for valuation by a valuer with knowledge of local markets.

(2) The Secretary of State shall ensure that all compensation applications are acknowledged within a period of two weeks and responded to substantively within a period of ten weeks, failing which the application will be deemed accepted.’

This new clause is intended to insert procedures for valuation by local valuers in disputed compensation cases, and to seek to ensure timely responses to compensation applications.

New clause 20—Public Sector Operators—

‘(1) Section 25 of the Railways Act 1993 (c. 43) (public-sector operators not to be franchisees) does not apply in relation to the franchisee in respect of a franchise agreement—

(a) which relates wholly or mainly to the provision of one or more Phase One of High Speed 2 passenger services, or

(b) which relates wholly or mainly to the provision of one or more other services for the carriage of passengers by railway where—

(i) the services run wholly or partly on the route of Phase One of High Speed 2, and

(ii) the services are likely to be subject to substantial disruption because of the construction of Phase One of High Speed 2.

(2) The following may in particular be taken into account in determining whether, for the purposes of subsection (1)(b), services are likely to be subject to substantial disruption—

(a) the frequency with which the services are likely to be disrupted,

(b) the duration of the period in which the services are likely to be disrupted (and, in particular, its duration relative to the length of the franchise term),

(c) the severity of any likely disruption.

(3) In this section—

“franchisee”, “franchise agreement” and “franchise term” have the meanings given by section 23 of the Railways Act 1993 (designated passenger services to be provided under franchise agreements).’

New clause 21—Financial Reports—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must prepare a report on expenditure under this Act in relation to each financial year.

(2) Each report must contain details of—

(a) expenditure incurred during the financial year to which the report relates (with capital and resource expenditure specified separately in relation to construction and other activity under this Act and in respect of each head of expenditure referred to in section 1(4)(a) to (c) of the High Speed Rail (Preparation) Act 2013);

(b) the extent to which expenditure incurred during that year represents an overspend or underspend as against the budget for such expenditure for the year;

(c) the likely effect of any such overspend or underspend on a total budget of £55.7 billion in 2015 prices (which includes construction and the cost of rolling stock);

(d) total expenditure incurred under section 67 up to the end of that year;

(e) sums or assets received in that year in connection with expenditure incurred under this Act, including in relation to section 48.

(3) In this section, “financial year” means—

(a) the period beginning with the day on which this Act is passed and ending;

(b) each subsequent period of 12 months.

(4) The Secretary of State must lay each report under this section before Parliament as soon as is reasonably practicable after the end of the financial year to which it relates.’

New clause 26—Protection of business continuity by extended notice of entry in the case of vulnerable businesses—

‘(1) If an operator of a business or undertaking believes that the business or undertaking’s continued operation or profitability would be vulnerable if inadequate notice is received of the planned exercise of powers under sections 4, 5, 6, 12 or 15 of this Act and the associated schedules, the operator may notify the Secretary of State of this belief.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), “inadequate notice” means a period of notice that would not provide a reasonable amount of time for the business or undertaking to relocate to a new premises and refit that premises to a reasonable standard before the exercise of the powers.

(3) Upon receipt of such notification, the Secretary of State must facilitate a dialogue with the operator in relation to timing and funding of business relocation, and required notice periods, and shall consider the reasons for the operator’s belief.

(4) Unless the dialogue provides a satisfactory resolution within three months of initial notification—

(a) a 12-month minimum notice period shall apply for the exercise of powers mentioned in subsection (1) in relation to the relevant business or undertaking; and

(b) the early compensation payable to the operator shall be 100%, not 90%, of the estimated relocation costs, and such compensation shall be payable in full, nine months before the anticipated relocation date notified by the operator.”

New clause 27—Report on classification of HS2 as England-only project—

‘Within 3 months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on—

(a) the classification of HS2 as an England-only project for the purposes of Treasury expenditure, and

(b) how much extra money Wales would receive in terms of Barnett consequential money as a result of such classification.’

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to produce a report on reclassifying HS2 as an England-only project for the purposes of calculating Treasury expenditure through the Barnett Formula and how much more money Wales would have received as a result.

New clause 30—Community detriment fund—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must establish a community detriment fund.

(2) The community detriment fund will provide an additional source of funding to communities, supplemental to that available through the community and environment fund.

(3) The community detriment fund will be available to address adverse impacts of HS2 construction on communities, including but not limited to impaired accessibility, diminution in availability of community amenities, and physical effects of construction.

(4) A principal objective of the fund will be to remove the need for formal compensation claims and to provide an expedited means of claiming funding for detriment.

(5) The fund will be available only to address adverse effects on communities, not impacts on individual households, businesses or undertakings.

(6) Among the measures that may be considered as available for funding to address detriment shall be transport facilities such as shuttle services.’

New clause 32—Review of fairness of rural support zone compensation—

‘The Secretary of State must conduct a review of the reasons for situating the boundary of the Rural Support Zone in west London which shall be laid before both House of Parliament within three months of this Bill receiving Royal Assent.’

New clause 33—Compensation—

‘(1) Within three months of this Bill receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State shall lay before both Houses of Parliament a report responding to a review of compensation applicable to those affected by HS2 Phases One and Two which shall by then have reported in accordance with directions already issued.

(2) The review shall consider the following—

(a) whether a compensation framework based on a property bond system could be an equally or more effective means of compensating those affected by blight from HS2 construction and operation while maintaining a functioning property market, having due regard to demands on public expenditure and investment;

(b) whether the current rateable value limit for compensation and blight claims by owner-occupiers of business premises should be abolished or amended;

(c) whether loss payment ceilings are fair and appropriate;

(d) whether a higher proportion of advance compensation for relocation than the current 90% should be payable in certain instances;

(e) whether the time limits for claiming compensation where no land is taken should be re-evaluated;

(f) the position of those affected by blight caused by HS2 whose property is subject to mortgage and who may find themselves unable to remortgage or in a position of negative equity as a result of such blight;

(g) whether those considering a claim for compensation should receive advance payment of fees for professional advice.’

Amendment 15, in clause 48, page 18, line 8, after “considers” insert

“having regard to the relevant development plan,”.

[Mr Goodwill]

I must confess that I feel like a queue-jumper, because I added my name and the Government’s support to new clause 19 and amendment 15 only last night. I will be brief, because I know that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) will want to expand on them and to explain why his case was so convincing and compelling. It is another example of how our new railway will be delivered not only on a cross-party basis in this House, but with the support of the great cities of the midlands and the north.

I welcome new clause 19 on vocational qualifications. I strongly believe in the importance of ensuring that we utilise the opportunities that HS2 will create for skills and jobs, which is why we have invested in the National College for High Speed Rail. New clause 19 will further bolster the importance of delivering skills as part of the development of HS2. As such, the Government support it becoming part of the Bill.

[Sir Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, because I know that he needs to get on. Does he agree that it is important that the National Construction College and the Construction Industry Training Board are closely involved in this skills initiative?

[Mr Goodwill]

Indeed, I look forward to being in Doncaster soon with the right hon. Member for Doncaster Central (Dame Rosie Winterton), the Opposition Chief Whip, to cut the first sod in that project. It is important that we look at skills across the board. The college’s hub and spoke arrangement will enable other educational establishments to engage fully and will allow for other qualifications.

Similarly, I welcome amendment 15 from the Opposition. It relates to clause 48, the purpose of which is to ensure that the regeneration opportunities presented by HS2 are maximised in a timely manner. It is a backstop power and we expect that local authorities will lead such opportunities using their existing powers, but in the event that development is impeded we will have the ability to step in to ensure that development progresses. It is important that such development takes into account relevant development plans. I am grateful that the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) tabled the amendment, and I urge all hon. and right hon. Members to support it.

Turning to the other proposed changes, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) has proposed several new clauses and amendments. She has been a tireless advocate for her constituents affected by HS2. However, all her points have been considered before, at length, through the Select Committee process, parliamentary debates, and the many parliamentary questions she has asked my Department. The process has delivered clear benefits to her constituency, including a 2.6 km tunnel extension, meaning that almost 86% of the route in her constituency is tunnelled, with the rest in a cutting. Her constituency has also benefited from the removal of an area of sustainable placement at Hunts Green and more noise barriers along that cutting. I acknowledge the points made but do not believe that new clauses 1 to 4 should be added to the Bill.

New clause 20 deals with the nationalisation of rail services, an area of ideological difference between the Government and the Opposition. I am therefore unlikely to convince them on it, and, I suspect, vice versa. It is clear to the Government that the franchising process delivers better services, better value for money and a better railway. Since privatisation, the rail industry has been transformed, with the number of passenger journeys more than doubling over the past 20 years. We believe this remains the right approach overall for Britain’s railway.

In any case, the new clause is unnecessary, as under the existing legislative framework it is possible for the state to operate rail services, as happened temporarily on the east coast main line. It is possible, and indeed quite likely, that the state might run HS2 initially, to prove certainty on operation and passenger numbers, but for the long-term successful future of HS2 a privately operated franchise is the best way forward.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister is giving a pretty fair assessment of how he sees this proceeding. The new clause provides for a permissive power, meaning that it would simply be available going forward. The proposal has been mirrored in previous legislation, such as that dealing with Crossrail, so what is the Government’s objection to a permissive clause of this kind?

[Mr Goodwill]

I thought I just said that this power is already available and therefore this is a superfluous new clause and we do not need it to give us these powers. I very much doubt Opposition Members will agree with my view that nationalisation of the railways is not the way forward, so stuck as they seem to be in the 1970s, but I hope I may have provided sufficient explanation as to why this power is not required.

We have given consideration to the other proposed new clauses and amendments. Although I understand the importance of some of the issues raised, I do not believe they belong in the Bill, as they have already been considered during the Select Committee process. To conclude, in order not to take up any more time than is necessary, I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will be able to support the inclusion of new clause 19 and amendment 15, but I urge them to not to press the other proposals, which I do not believe are required.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

I am pleased to be able to contribute to this important debate and play a part in this Bill’s progress. We fully appreciate the importance of this vital piece of infrastructure and the benefits it will bring to our country for generations to come. It is not common to find such consensus in this House, but I am pleased that both the Government and the Opposition understand the need for this high-speed railway. HS2 was, of course, the brainchild of the previous Labour Government, but I readily acknowledge the work that the current Government have done in progressing the project. It is to be very much welcomed for the country that we have such consensus across the House on such important national infrastructure projects.

In that same vein, I shall discuss new clause 19, which stands in the name of the Minister, as well as in my name, those of some of his colleagues and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood). It deals with vocational qualifications.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Gillan]

The hon. Gentleman’s point about inaccurate assessments is, I am afraid, repeated throughout dealings with HS2. This is a particularly bad example. The Woodland Trust petitioned HS2 for a minimum planting ratio of 30:1 to compensate for the fact that irreplaceable habitats will be lost, and the planting of 2 million trees along the wider route is just the starting point. I would have hoped that that could be put in the Bill, which would have made the provision legally binding and ensured that at least some structured replanting and maintenance took place.

[Mr Goodwill]

May I underline our commitment to no net environmental loss and our commitment to plant 2 million trees, which will be managed to the best arboricultural standards? One of the problems that we had with the assessment of ancient woodland was getting access to land to carry out such assessments, because some landowners would not grant us access. That will not be a problem with further phases, because we have taken those powers as part of the Bill.

[Mrs Gillan]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that clarification. I wish I could take it at face value.

[Mrs Gillan]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very valid point. Quite frankly, the fact that anybody actually says they would replace ancient woodland just shows the ignorance of some of the people dealing with this matter.

[Mr Goodwill]

rose—

[Mrs Gillan]

The Minister is determined to get in again. As we have not heard a lot from him, I will give way.

[Mr Goodwill]

May I just make the point that translocation of ancient woodland soils is recognised by Natural England as an important mechanism for aiding the creation of ecologically valuable woodlands? If properly planned and undertaken, that can be an important element of compensatory measures, where the loss of ancient woodland is unavoidable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Slaughter]

Given the lack of time, I shall speak only to amendment 16, tabled in my name, which seeks to give statutory protection to Wormwood Scrubs common. I should really say “more statutory protection” because, as metropolitan open land and strategic defence land, it is already protected by an Act of Parliament. More importantly, it hosts an extraordinary range of sports and pastimes. Thousands of disabled children ride at the pony centre every year. An organisation called the Friends of Wormwood Scrubs is seeking to protect its 200 acres of semi-wilderness, which form a substantial proportion of my constituency—an area in which open spaces are at a premium.

However, in the time since HS2 was proposed, we have been asked to put a viaduct across it, and we have been told that it could be turned into formal gardens and that it could be amenity space for the luxury flats being built around the HS2 route. We are now being told that it will be a transit way for hundreds of thousands of people to walk across, which would essentially destroy this London landmark forever.

Although I clearly will not today get the protection that I am seeking, I thank the Select Committee for recognising my representations and acknowledging that they were my only representations. I say to the Government and to HS2 Ltd that it will be a crime if this open space is despoiled over the course of the development.

I wanted to make some more general comments as I think my constituency will see more development than any other. I will not say that I am as adversely affected as other hon. and right hon. Members, and some of the development is of course welcome, but if I am able to catch your eye on Third Reading, Madam Deputy Speaker, I can perhaps make some of those points then. I entirely support what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) and my hon. Friends the Members for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) and for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) said about the effect on their residents and businesses. As they used to be my constituents, I mention the residents of Wells House Road, Midland Terrace and Stephenson Street, whose homes will be blighted for many years to come and will be entirely surrounded by HS2 works.

I could have tabled something similar to new clause 22 asking for the Old Oak Common development to be regulated, but that should not be necessary because the London Sustainable Development Commission is there to deal with such matters. At the moment, however, it is not working. I hope that it will work under a new Mayor, because we currently have unregulated development on the site and a huge opportunity cost, which is not allowing for proper exploitation of and investment in that land.

[Mr Goodwill]

The new clauses and amendments principally concern environmental issues, which the Government take very seriously. The Bill and the environmental minimum requirements establish robust environmental controls that have proved to be an effective mechanism on other projects, such as Crossrail and the channel tunnel rail link. In addition, many of the new clauses and amendments relate to issues on which we have already provided assurances through the Select Committee process. Some comments were made during the debate, not least from the Opposition Front-Bench team, about those assurances not being worth the paper on which they were written, but they are commitments made to Parliament by the Secretary of State and are enforced by Parliament. The process worked well for Crossrail and the channel tunnel rail link, so we do not need a belt when have more than adequate braces—or “gallusses” as we call them in my part of the world. The Select Committee process led to nearly 400 alterations to the scheme and provided some 1,600 assurances and undertakings to those affected by HS2.

I specifically want to touch on new clause 22, relating to the development of an integrated station at Euston, and I was pleased that the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) managed to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. We share an ambition for the integrated redevelopment of Euston station and assurances have been provided to the London Borough of Camden. Indeed, I recently met the leader of the council to discuss such matters. Work is already under way regarding the commitments given in the assurances to Camden, Transport for London and the Greater London Authority on the overall integration of works at Euston and the co-ordination with Crossrail 2. I can also confirm that funding is available to progress initial feasibility work for the preparation of an outline masterplan for Euston station, which includes the classic, Network Rail element of the station.

[Andrew Bridgen]

Will the Minister inform the House how many conventional platforms will have to be sacrificed at Euston to accommodate HS2?

[Mr Goodwill]

We have made it quite clear that phasing the development of the high-speed platforms at Euston will give us the opportunity to carry out some of that work, and we have changed the phasing to make it possible to operate other services into Euston. Indeed, we estimate that around a third of HS2 passengers will alight at Old Oak Common and use the Elizabeth line to access central London or Heathrow. While I recognise the desire to highlight the importance of such issues through new clause 22, legislation is unnecessary for Euston when progress has been and is being made.

Transparency was mentioned by several hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), and we have appointed a residents commissioner to hold HS2 Ltd to account for how it communicates with residents and have committed to appoint a construction commissioner to deal with complaints that cannot be addressed by HS2 Ltd and its contractors. I hope that also reassures my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve).

On the Chilterns area of outstanding natural beauty review group, we have already committed to establish a Chilterns AONB group.

[Mr Grieve]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Goodwill]

I must make progress because we have only a minute left. On residential demolitions, we have committed to, and are progressing with Camden Council on, the replacement of all lost social housing in Euston as a result of HS2. On the prohibition of vehicles, an issue raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury, the Bill already requires local authorities to approve local routes, so the amendment on that is unnecessary.

Many of the proposed new clauses and amendments would duplicate existing obligations already made to Parliament, and I do not believe it necessary to include them in the Bill. I therefore urge hon. Members to reject the proposed new clauses, new schedules and amendments.

[Mrs Gillan]

In the light of the unsatisfactory reply from the Minister and the fact that he has relied again on saying that his appointees are adequate for the scrutiny of this project, I will have no other choice than to push new clause 8, which deals with the office of the HS2 adjudicator, to a vote. As for new clause 6, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Maritime and Coastguard Agency (Business Plan)

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2016 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

I am pleased to announce the publication of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency’s (MCA) business plan for 2016-17.

The business plan sets out:

the services that the agency will deliver and any significant changes it plans to make;

the resources the agency requires;

the key performance measures, by which its performance will be assessed.

This plan allows service users and members of the public to assess how the agency is performing in operating its key services, managing reforms and the agency finances.

The business plan will be available electronically on gov.uk and copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

Attachments can be viewed online at: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2016-03-23/HCWS644

[HCWS644]

Points of Order

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The right hon. Lady’s interpretation is correct. I always think that it is important for our proceedings to be intelligible to people beyond this place, so let it be stated on the record that these exchanges have not eaten into the time available for debate at all. They have obliged the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), who is about to present his ten-minute rule Bill, to wait patiently before being able to speak to it, but they have not in any way detracted from or taken time out of the debate on the High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill. I am afraid that the right hon. Lady is correct to say that if Members seek a Division on a particular amendment, that will eat away at the remaining time available for debate. A lot of people will feel that that is a regrettable state of affairs, to put it mildly. I note what she has said about the precedent of the Channel Tunnel Bill. The Secretary of State is not in his place, although he might very well be here for Third Reading. As far as I am aware, he is a person of robust constitution and perfectly capable of staying in the Chamber for an appreciable period to debate matters of important public policy. I have never had any reason to suppose that his conscientious Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State—[Interruption.] His Minister of State, indeed. No discourtesy was intended to the hon. Gentleman. I have never had reason to suppose that the Minister of State was incapable of strenuous parliamentary endeavour over an extended period.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Perhaps the Minister is going to add to that point now.

[Mr Goodwill]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I should like to point out that last night’s Business of the House motion was not objected to. On the matter of Members having had their say on the Bill, the Select Committee sat for 160 days, which was more than 700 hours. It heard 1,600 petitions, and 21 Members of this House appeared before it a total of 36 times. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) herself attended three times, for a total of two hours and 10 minutes.

[Mr Speaker]

That is a matter of indisputable fact, and I thank the Minister of State for taking the opportunity to make that point. So far as last night is concerned, it is also a matter of fact that the motion was not objected to. The Business of the House motion appertaining to this matter was of course objected to on Monday evening by the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham. Had it been objected to last night, there would have been a requirement for a debate today on Members’ concerns, which would have eaten into the available time. The absence of an objection last night and the fact that I have just mentioned are obviously causally linked.

HS2 Phase One: Financial Indemnity for Affinity Water

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd March 2016 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

I have today laid before Parliament a departmental minute from the Department for Transport describing the contingent liability arising from an indemnity that will be provided to Affinity Water Ltd, protecting them from financial loss as a result of any construction damage to at-risk water resources from the construction of the Phase One, London to West Midlands HS2 rail line.

HS2 construction in the Colne Valley has the potential to cause damage to the chalk aquifer from which Affinity Water sources its water supply. An appropriate mitigation strategy will be developed during detailed design of the construction works, using information from ground investigation surveys. With the mitigation strategy in place, it is considered that the risks to the aquifer will be low. However, the risk of potential damage will exist despite the mitigation measures which will be applied. Should the aquifer or the company’s abstraction points be damaged, Affinity Water is likely to face a consequential financial loss. There is no existing protection for Affinity Water in respect of this loss and they would be unlikely to make a successful claim under common law. Under standard compensation arrangements, the basis for compensation would link to the loss in value or damage to a claimant’s property, which for Affinity Water could include pipes or pumps. However, the water in an aquifer is not a property of Affinity Water and so they have no protection if the project causes damage to the resources on which they are dependent. Therefore, Affinity Water require the Department for Transport to carry the liability for any financial loss arising from any impact of the Phase One construction works on their abstraction points.

The worst-case scenario with respect to the liability would include the cost of replacing three abstraction boreholes, each one is estimated to cost £20 million, and also the cost of providing temporary replacement water supplies during the period for which water abstraction is interrupted. The indemnity will not be limited, however. Under the worst-case scenario, the projected cost of the indemnity is expected to be approximately £77 million. The duration of the liability is scheduled to last for four years from 2017 to 2021, which represents the period of the construction works which might cause the potential damage. The worst-case scenario, in which HS2 must replace more than one borehole, is considered to be remote.

If the liability is called, provision for any payment will be managed through normal supply procedure. The Department will be noting this contingent liability in its accounts.

Attachments can be viewed online at:

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2016-03-22/HCWS637/.

[HCWS637]

Cabin Air Safety/Aerotoxic Syndrome

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Thursday 17th March 2016 Westminster Hall

[Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Gillan.

First, I will declare an interest, having been a Unite rep in a previous existence; I remain a member of the union. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) for securing this debate, and for his very measured opening speech.

My background is in science; I used to work as a biochemist for the NHS. So I am very wary about jumping to any conclusions; we need to weigh up the evidence. However, I support the request for an independent inquiry into this issue. The evidence is quite compelling and we need to progress. The employer’s duty of care has been talked about, and it is absolutely key to this issue that we assess the evidence that is available, examine the incidents that have occurred and try to establish whether there is a causative effect. We really need to take some action, and I hope that that is what we decide to do at the end of this debate.

Both my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde and the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) have already talked about cabin air and where it comes from. It is quite significant that the new Boeing 787 uses a different method of supplying cabin air. The air is supplied by electronically driven compressors that take air directly from the atmosphere so there is no contact with the engines; there is no possibility of a seal failing and contaminants from the engine oil getting into the cabin air. One of my constituents, who is an air steward, has suggested to me that this new plane has been developed because it has been recognised that there are issues with the old system of bleed air. Again, however, that is speculation.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

I asked precisely the same question of my officials: was it done for that reason? They said, no, it was done for other reasons, not because of the air quality issue. Obviously, however, the effect is that air does not have to pass through the engine. The aircraft was designed for efficiency and that change was one way of making the aircraft more efficient; it was not made in reaction to this bleed air quality issue.

[Liz McInnes]

I thank the Minister for that intervention; that is very useful information. It reinforces the point about speculation and causative effects. Obviously, cabin crew say that the air issue was the reason why the 787 was developed with that system. If there is a public inquiry on this matter, I hope that information about that system will form part of the evidence.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde said that some statistics showed that fume events occurred in one flight in 2,000. One of the statistics that I pulled out is from the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment. COT reported in 2007 that fume events occur on one flight in 100, so again there is some dispute over the incidence of these events. There is also anecdotal evidence that fume events occur even more often than that, but they are not being reported. The really surprising thing about all of this is that there are no chemical sensors in the aircraft. The noses of the cabin crew are the only detectors.

My constituent asked me not to give her name, but she was quite happy to talk to me about her experience as a cabin crew member. She described these fume events to me. She said that she has been in cabins when fumes have entered. She has flown for four different airlines and fume events have happened in planes from all four of them. She said to me, “Fumes come in. You smell the oil. It’s not being acknowledged by managers and higher officials in the airline industry when these incidents are reported.” When I spoke to her, she compared the effect of fume events with Gulf war syndrome. With Gulf war syndrome, we had soldiers coming back to the UK with massive neurological problems and it took a very long time for any investigation to be made and for it to occur to somebody that these problems were happening too often to be a coincidence. It is interesting that she made that comparison.

My constituent said to me that all cabin crew want is for this problem to be recognised and acknowledged. Until we have a full investigation, cabin crew will not feel that their employers are doing everything they can to safeguard them while they are at work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

Mr Hanson, I welcome you to the Chair. I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) on securing the debate, as well as to my hon. Friends the Members for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady) and for Brent Central (Dawn Butler), who supported him in his application to the Backbench Business Committee. I thank that Committee for granting this very important debate.

I also thank all hon. Members from both sides of the House who have contributed today. I counted 12, taking into account interventions and speeches, which shows the importance that Members attach to this issue. We heard speeches from the hon. Members for Crawley (Henry Smith) and for Horsham (Jeremy Quin), as well as from my hon. Friends the Members for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) and for York Central (Rachael Maskell), who both brought scientific expertise to the debate, which was very welcome. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central spoke with a lot of personal knowledge of this issue from her involvement in the aviation industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) spoke with a great deal of passion. Like my hon. Friend the Member for York Central, he emphasised the importance of trade unions being able to bring these kinds of issues to the House’s attention and talked about that being an important part of democracy.

The aviation industry and the aviation sector is a key pillar of our economy, but it is more than that, even though that is important enough in its own right; travel by air has made our world a smaller place. It fosters direct face-to-face contact and understanding between peoples across the globe in a way that no other mode of travel ever has. That is why it is right that we pay tribute today to those who work in the civil aviation sector, on the ground as well as in the air.

However, this debate really does raise genuine welfare concerns, particularly for cabin crew and pilots: some of the people on whom we rely to get comfortably and safely to our destinations. Their work, as many hon. Members have said, is far from easy. Fatigue is regularly among the top concerns of staff in the air, and we know that that is an underlying but ever-growing problem. We also appreciate the impact that their work can have on their family life.

Despite all those pressures, however, what is clear is that air crew do the job because they love it, and two such people were Richard Westgate and Matt Bass. I want to join the tributes to their families and to Unite. I declare myself a proud member of Unite and draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. It is right to recognise that parts of the media have tried to move the issue up the public agenda. It has received attention from, for example, BBC’s “Victoria Derbyshire” programme and ITN’s “Tonight” programme.

All those people and institutions are right in saying that key unanswered questions remain: on research into air fume events, monitoring and detection systems, and awareness, education and diagnosis of symptoms. The Government’s responsibility is to do all they can to ensure the safety of passengers and crew alike. The existence of regulators is important, but does not take away that overall responsibility. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde said, we know from the asbestos issue that what authorities often believe for a long time to be the case does not always turn out to be correct.

We know that many modern aircraft use bleed-air systems—that has been referred to many times in this debate—to supply air to the cabin, but we also know that faults with engine seals and seepage can lead to contaminated fumes containing toxins. What is not crystal clear is the implication of short and long-term exposure to contaminated air and its links to aerotoxic syndrome which, given the range of systems, is clearly difficult to diagnose. However, there are some things we already know. The coroner’s report on the death of Richard Westgate recognised:

“symptoms consistent with chronic exposure to organophosphates.”

We know that Matt Bass shared similar symptoms. The inquest into his death is ongoing. We also know that Unite is pursuing some 61 individual cases. The question is real: is aerotoxic syndrome an occupational illness?

A number of Members today have drawn attention to reports and position papers produced by the Committee on Toxicity and how its findings have been interpreted. There is a clear distinction between saying there is no evidence of aerotoxic syndrome, as some suggest, and saying that there is not enough evidence to prove that link. As Professor Alan Boobis, the Committee’s chair, said in his interview on ITN’s “Tonight” programme last year:

“We made proposals for research that could be pursued…as far as I know, no one came back.”

The Association of Flight Attendants also called for further research in its critique of the committee’s 2007 report, in which it stated that

“there is a need for a large scale sampling study.”

My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde rightly called for an independent inquiry to get to the bottom of these things, and that call has been echoed by others. The Minister will no doubt say that the UK is supporting an international approach for research through the European Aviation Safety Agency. That is important, and I understand that the agency will publish a preliminary report in the autumn. It is also important to know exactly what that is about and who is doing it. I understand that the agency has contracted out the work; in that context, will the Minister confirm the independence of the bodies commissioned to do that study and who was consulted on the choice of contractor? If he does not have the information now, I understand, and perhaps he will write to me.

[Mr Goodwill]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that. I follows on from four pieces of research in the UK, most notably that by Cranfield University, so it is not as if we have not already carried out a lot of work in the UK.

[Richard Burden]

I am grateful to the Minister for that information, but I want to press him on EASA’s study and its remit. His letter in November 2015 to the Chair of the Transport Committee suggests that EASA is currently looking at what equipment should be put in place to undertake cockpit and cabin air measurements in future and will report in the autumn. That is important, and I will come back to it in a moment. I shall be grateful if the Minister will confirm whether the current EASA project has any remit to survey existing evidence from inquiries and studies—he mentioned some of them—whether from the UK, from other parts of Europe, international or in, for example, Australia.

Those inquiries and studies of air cabin safety have happened already. If the EASA does not have a remit to look at those other studies and can look only at monitoring for the future, should the Minister not ensure that someone is doing that work already? If it is happening, that is great, but it would be useful to know who is doing it. If it is not happening, why not? A number of hon. Members have mentioned the importance of the precautionary principle, which we need to apply in this case. The state has a duty of care.

On research, I have been told that no toxicity studies have reflected the real-life atmospheric pressure and temperature levels of planes at altitude. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central made this point. To me, that says that we simply do not know the synergistic effects and impact of prolonged exposure. Understanding that is critical if we are to establish whether this is an occupational disease. Will the Minister tell me whether I am right and, if I am, who will do that study and who will put in place those tests on aircraft in flight?

Whatever else is or is not being done, it seems from what the Minister said in his letter to the Chair of the Transport Committee in November 2015 that EASA is looking into the use of monitoring equipment, and that is important. It is vital to improve the data available for research. There are already legal requirements for cabin air to adhere to set levels of, for example, carbon dioxide and other toxins, but without appropriate detection equipment in place how do we know whether those standards are being met? Will the Minister say whether systems are available that could be put on aircraft? If there are, why are they not on aircraft and what can we do to ensure that that happens from now on?

No one denies that the fume events occur, but we do not know the true extent to which contaminated air incidents happen, as we have heard time and again today. Without monitoring, it is up to aircraft crew to report incidents. As was also said today, it is down to the noses of air crew. That makes it equally important that they receive adequate awareness training to detect leaks, whether by smell or other means. It is not unreasonable to suggest, as various hon. Members have, that pilots and cabin crew may be reluctant to report, particularly in the highly competitive environments in which airlines now operate, what they suspect could be minor instances, especially given the possible implications for airlines and perhaps for their own professional interests.

The 2008 ASA critique of the Committee on Toxicity also noted that the rate and reliability of reports coming in were flawed. So what steps are the Government taking with the regulators to ensure that awareness training is in place and that reporting is expected and enforced?

Finally, on the types of aircraft, what guidance does the Minister have on whether certain aircraft are particularly susceptible to fume events? In line with the precautionary principle that Members from all parties have said we need to adopt, where there is now bleed-free architecture available, what steps can we take to ensure that all future aircraft built adopt that technology? I am glad that the Minister asked his civil servants whether there was any link with cabin air in the design of the 787 Dreamliner. They told him that the design was about efficiency, not cabin air. I am sure it was partly about efficiency, but will the Minister go back to them and ask them to check whether representations were made and whether the Federal Aviation Administration talked about air quality in cabins being a factor in the design of bleed-free engines?

I hope the Minister will address the questions that all hon. Members have raised today. We owe it to Richard Westgate and Matt Bass, and to their families. We owe it to cabin crews and pilots themselves. Because all of us are in this category as well, we owe it to the travelling public, the passengers. We need to get to the bottom of this without further delay.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship yet again, Mr Hanson. I congratulate the hon. Members for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) and for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) on securing this debate about cabin air safety and aerotoxic syndrome. I should also declare an interest as a member of a union that has members who have been involved with OP toxicity issues. As a member of the National Farmers Union, I have dipped many thousands of sheep and used chemicals at many thousands of times the concentration of the ones we are talking about in this debate. Also, I have two friends who have suffered the sorts of symptoms that we have heard described today: chronic fatigue and sickness and so on.

[Grahame M. Morris]

The Minister is making a good point. In fact, the issue was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden). Does he accept that the problem is the regular, continuous exposure to various levels, whereas sheep dipping, even though it was done without proper protection initially—he can correct me if I am wrong—would presumably be for a limited period? It would not be every day in someone’s working life on the farm.

[Mr Goodwill]

I will go on to describe the levels that those in aircraft cabins are likely to be exposed to under normal operations when a fume event has not taken place. However, as I was saying, neither of my two friends who are suffering from career-finishing symptoms—they are not able to work—had been involved in either the aviation industry or in agriculture. I suspect that if they had been involved in agriculture, I would have been asking questions about whether their exposure to sheep dip or to other agrochemicals may have been to blame. Similarly, if they had been in the aviation industry, I would perhaps be asking the same questions.

The Government take the health and air safety of passengers and crew extremely seriously. The United Kingdom is recognised throughout the global aviation community for its high standard and excellent record of safety in commercial aviation. I must make it clear that the Government must always act on evidence and we have over the years worked hard to collect evidence, as did the previous Government when the problem first came to public awareness. There has been much public debate about the issue as so many people are aware of the problem.

There are currently two inquests into deaths where the relatives of the deceased are trying to establish whether contamination by cabin air could have been the cause of death. Both inquests are still open, and in both cases the CAA rather than my Department has been named as an interested party. Both of the deceased were employed by the same airline, and so far the evidence that has been gathered does not support the view that the deaths were connected to contamination of cabin air.

In the case of Richard Westgate, the Dorset coroner’s January pre-inquest review has been adjourned to 30 March 2016 to allow time for medical experts’ reports to be submitted, but he did release a prevention of future deaths report in 2014, which some have taken as a signal that the death might be attributed to contamination of cabin air. However, there was no evidence to suggest that this was the case, and we await the full inquest verdict with a great deal of interest.

In the case of Matt Bass, who has been mentioned during this debate and whose case is before the Berkshire coroner, the January pre-inquest review has been adjourned until 15 June 2016 to allow time to locate medical samples and to instruct the experts. I offer my deepest sympathies to the families and friends of the deceased, but, as the two inquests have not been concluded, it would not be appropriate for the Government to comment in further detail.

[Dawn Butler]

The Bournemouth coroner, in respect of Mr Westgate, issued a regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths under the Coroners (Investigations) Regulations 2013 in relation to both British Airways and the CAA on 16 February 2015. In it he states:

“In my opinion urgent action should be taken to prevent future deaths and I believe that your organisation has the power to take such action.”

Is that part of your consideration?

[Mr Goodwill]

As I said, the inquest has not been finalised and no verdict has been reached. In many ways, the precautionary principle may have prompted the coroner to issue that advice at that time, but the case is still before the courts. Similarly, if the case was before a criminal court, one would not want to comment before the verdict. It would be inappropriate for the Government to do so and my legal advice is that we should not comment before the verdict. In at least one of the cases we will not have long to wait for the verdict, and we will look very carefully at the scientific evidence brought before the inquest and how that is interpreted.

[Kirsten Oswald]

I am interested to hear the Minister say that the Government want to look carefully at the evidence; I appreciate the sentiment behind that. Would it be useful to also look very carefully at the responses to the report referred to by British Airways and the Civil Aviation Authority, because this information will help us to decide how best to move forward?

[Mr Goodwill]

Certainly the CAA is involved in this. I meet regularly with the unions involved, particularly BALPA, so it is not something that we are trying to shuffle away, but we need to wait for the result of the inquest before we report on these particular cases. I will go on to present various pieces of evidence and show where we are on this important matter. I will talk about what work has already been done and what work we believe needs to be done.

The safety of cabin air is an issue that has been a matter of public debate over several years—in fact, over a decade now. This continues to be the case, and I, together with my noble Friend Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, have received a considerable amount of correspondence and responded to several parliamentary questions on cabin air quality. As background, some crew and passengers have expressed concerns that they have suffered long-term health impairment, which they contend is due to exposure to organophosphates present in small amounts as additives in aviation engine oils and hydraulic fluids.

As ever, we have to be careful to have regard to whether there is evidence to support the link between the illnesses and cabin air. That is why the concerns have been investigated at length over a number of years. In 2006 the previous Government arranged for the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment—an independent advisory committee of toxicology experts—to review evidence from the British Airline Pilots Association. At the time, the Committee on Toxicity considered that it was not possible to conclude whether cabin air exposures in general, or following incidents such as fume events, cause ill health in commercial aircraft crews. It recommended further work to ascertain whether substances in the cabin environment could potentially be harmful to health.

A second inquiry was held by the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee, which looked into this issue as part of a wider inquiry in 2007, and published its findings in a report called “Air Travel and Health”. In that report, the findings of the Committee on Toxicity were supported. Following the recommendation in 2007 by the Committee on Toxicity, the Government commissioned a series of scientific studies as part of a research programme on cabin air. The principal research study, which was carried out by Cranfield University, was published in 2011. It found that, with respect to the conditions of flight experienced during the cabin air sampling, there was no evidence of pollutants occurring at levels exceeding health and safety standards and guidelines. Levels observed in the flights that formed part of the study—I stress that they did not include an instance of an oil seal failing—were comparable to those typically experienced in domestic settings. No higher levels of exposure were found than, for example, we would experience in this Chamber.

In addition to the principal study, three further research studies were commissioned and published by the Government. Those four published studies were formally submitted to the Committee on Toxicity for consideration in 2012. The Committee considered the research reports, as well as other research published in the scientific literature since 2007, and subsequently published a position paper on cabin air in December 2013.

I have recently written to several Members of Parliament regarding the findings of the Committee’s position paper. In that letter, which was also placed in the Libraries of both Houses, I summarised the advice the Committee gave and its conclusions. In short, the paper recognises that contamination of cabin air by components or combustion products of engine oils does occur, and that episodes of acute illness have occurred shortly after such episodes. However, it found that levels of chemicals in bleed air would need to occur in far higher concentrations than those found during the studies to cause serious toxicity, and that the symptoms that have been reported following fume events have been wide-ranging, and less specific than those that typically occur from chemical toxicity.

[Grahame M. Morris]

I am grateful to the Minister, who is being characteristically generous in giving way. Is there not a basic flaw in that suggestion, if we do not count incidents? Could it be that in some older aircraft that may not be maintained to such a rigorous standard, air fume events are more frequent? Is that not a possibility, if we do not do a proper investigation, in situ, in real time?

[Mr Goodwill]

That is a very reasonable point to make. The findings have been made by professional toxicologists, whose job it is to analyse the effects of toxic compounds in a variety of locations, including the workplace. I shall come on to talk about the number of so-called fume events, and I have some evidence from the CAA to put it in context.

[Richard Burden]

I understand the reports that the Minister refers to. I do not know whether he saw, as I did, the interview that Professor Boobis gave to the “Tonight” programme, when he was at pains to say that the Committee on Toxicity was not saying that cabin air was safe when the incidents occurred. He went on to say that it had made proposals for further research that could be pursued; as far as he knew no one came back to the committee. Has that been followed up?

[Mr Goodwill]

Research is ongoing, not least through the European Aviation Safety Agency, but the levels of OP concentration in situations where no fume event has occurred—which have been measured widely—have been found to be no greater than they are in this Chamber or any domestic location. They are very small background levels, as one would expect. Particularly given the sensitivity of some of the testing that can now be carried out, it is not difficult to find OPs almost anywhere.

As a toxic mechanism for the reported illnesses was found to be unlikely, a nocebo effect was considered a plausible alternative explanation for the symptoms. A nocebo effect can be defined as a detrimental effect on health produced by psychological or psychosomatic factors—for example where a subject develops symptoms as a reaction to a situation that he or she perceives as dangerous or hazardous. However, neither option could be proved beyond doubt given the available data; but we know that the nocebo effect happens in other circumstances. I hesitate to give this example from my own experience, but when I was a child my mother would serve us a cooked breakfast and after we had finished she would say, “I hope those sausages were all right. They were well past their sell-by date,” and one felt a feeling in one’s stomach. It is not the same thing, but it shows how psychological effects can pass into physical effects. That is one of the theories put forward by the scientists looking at the matter. The nocebo is an established psychological and medical situation.

[Rachael Maskell]

The Minister is being generous with his time this afternoon. What I want to know is what is behind the research. What about the cumulative impact of constant exposure to instances of gases being released into the cabin?

[Mr Goodwill]

I am going to come on to the frequency of fume events. I think none of the toxicologists or other scientists involved in the projects consider that there is a risk in the normal background level of chemicals in an aircraft cabin. As I have said, those are similar to the levels found in any other setting in the UK. The fume events are what we need to look at, and I will be discussing a little more evidence that I have been given about the frequency of those events.

As a toxic mechanism could not be categorically ruled out as the cause of the symptoms, the Committee concluded that more research would be beneficial. It stated, however, that it would be necessary to balance the likelihood that the further research will usefully inform further management of the problem against the costs of undertaking the research. There are various aspects of the issue to take into consideration, including the results of the research that has been undertaken and the unpredictability and rarity of the fume events. I said I would have some information on that. The Civil Aviation Authority operates a mandatory occurrence-reporting scheme and, contrary to what we may have heard during the debate, the CAA is determined that every type of occurrence should be reported. Indeed, if airlines do not report instances, questions are asked about whether their culture is a good one.

When I was a member of the Select Committee on Transport we visited the CAA and were given a list of the sorts of reports that came forward, which included things that people might not see as relevant, such as both pilots eating the same sandwich. That would be an issue if there were a food poisoning incident. Even what might seem trivial and unimportant incidents must be reported, and there is a culture of reporting in the airline industry, not least in the case of fume events, which people are well aware of.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

The Minister is being very generous. How does the CAA envisage the compulsory reporting of incidents being carried out, when there is not the monitoring available to find out whether one has occurred or not?

[Mr Goodwill]

I am advised that if a fume event occurs it is apparent to everyone on the aircraft. The smell of the oil is absolutely apparent to people. As I mentioned, there is a culture of reporting in the CAA and the aviation industry—which, incidentally, we would like to spread to the health service, where near misses and potential accidents are often not reported. Its reporting culture ensures that the aviation industry is one of the safest in the world.

[Rachael Maskell]

That is the crux of the debate. The reality is that it may be possible to detect a serious fuel event; but what about a minor one, where there is slight leakage into the cabin?

[Dawn Butler]

rose—

[Mr Goodwill]

I will also give way to the hon. Member for Brent Central before I respond.

[Dawn Butler]

To pick up on that point, there are also some toxins that one cannot smell, so is not the way to gather the empirical evidence, as has been said, just to monitor what is going on in the aircraft at the time? The Minister is absolutely right: the airline industry has a culture of reporting the errors or mistakes that people make, so that it can improve its system. However, that is exactly what is not happening with these incidents, because they are not being monitored.

[Mr Goodwill]

A lot of air quality monitoring has been carried out on aircraft. The problem is that fume events are relatively rare and therefore there has not been the ability to pick one up during one of those monitoring situations.

Under the CAA’s mandatory reporting scheme, the trigger for a report is an event that is considered by the crew to be a

“safety-related event which endangers or which, if not corrected or addressed, could endanger an aircraft, its occupants or any other person.”

None of the flights where fumes and smells were reported in post-flight questionnaires met those criteria; they are the ones that we actually tested. However, I have some data from the CAA on the number of those reports where smells have been reported in the cabin. We heard from the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde that he had been given the figure of about one in 2,000 flights. We heard from the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) that it is about one in 100. The evidence that I have is that in the last decade we have seen annually between 282 and 471 reports of smells or fumes in the cabin. The last year that we have report numbers for is 2014, when there were 426.

However, it must be emphasised that up to now, reports of fumes have included all causes of smoke, odour or fumes, both internal and external, and not just incidents of bleed-air contamination. The CAA estimates that a maximum of 10% of those incidents reported are regarding bleed-air contamination—in other words, less than one a week—and therefore it has not been possible as yet to have testing equipment on an aircraft when one has happened. I hope that that puts into context the frequency with which these situations occur.

[Rachael Maskell]

I would like to press the Minister a little further on this issue, because it is very important. The fact that detection equipment is not available or not placed on aircraft means that we are moving to subjective measures of whether an incident has occurred. Is it not vital that we first do the correct monitoring in order to understand how big, small or frequent these incidents are, and then go on to take action? I do not think that the reports to which the Minister is referring are satisfying us that that empirical evidence is available.

[Mr Goodwill]

I could not agree with the hon. Lady more. I am laying out what research has been done and what information we have to date. That is why it is very important that EASA makes further progress. Indeed, we are keen to find out what research is happening around the world. Because of the international nature of the aviation industry, it is the Government’s view that an international approach to any future research investigations would be appropriate.

[Chris Stephens]

Will the Minister comment on the occupational health and safety aspect and look at this issue again? It seems to me that air cabin crews’ Health and Safety Executive protections apply only when they are on the ground and outside the aircraft. Things such as Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations seem to be falling through the net between the CAA and the HSE.

[Mr Goodwill]

My advice is that the CAA is the body responsible for the safety of crew and passengers in this case, and the CAA, as I have said, takes this very seriously. We are working with international bodies such as EASA to try to progress some of the research. The opportunity to collect data from a broader sample base than is available in the UK—

[Chris Stephens]

The Minister has been most generous in accepting interventions. My understanding is that COSHH regulations would apply to much of this, but that the CAA has said that COSHH regulations do not apply to it. Could the hon. Gentleman go away and look at that, in terms of the health and safety protections that should apply to these workers?

[Mr Goodwill]

I am certainly happy to interrogate the CAA on its interpretation of the rules on COSHH. I am well aware of the operation of the regulations; as a former road tanker driver, I know all about COSHH regulations. But of course aviation is an international business and aircraft are not necessarily within our jurisdiction as they are flying, so it is important that we have international agreements. Indeed, many aircraft that carry British nationals are flagged to other countries around the world, and therefore we need to ensure that their standards are as high as ours and that work can be progressed internationally.

[Richard Burden]

I will add to the interventions now, so that the Minister can get them out of the way in one go. Could I press him a little more on the business about EASA? If I understood him correctly just now, he was saying that EASA was looking at the research that is available. The letter that he sent to the Transport Committee, as I understood it, suggested that EASA was looking not at that, but at the future of monitoring equipment. That is very important, but my question stands: who is looking at the body of research that is already there, nationally, in Europe and internationally, pulling it all together and seeing whether any action can be taken on the basis of what we already know?

[Mr Goodwill]

Certainly the UK has looked at the studies that have already taken place. Indeed, many of those were initiated in this country by the previous Labour Government. But we are obviously very keen to look at how we can work to get further information. In terms of the EASA research, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. In fact, due to the unpredictability and rarity of fume events and due to the international nature of the aviation industry, it is the Department’s view that an international approach to any future research investigations would be appropriate. The opportunity to collect data from a broader sample base than is available in the UK alone would lead to a higher probability of more meaningful evidence being collated. The Department therefore wrote to EASA with those views in March 2014.

EASA did launch in the spring of 2015 a preliminary in-flight cabin air measurement campaign. That will develop a methodology and put in place adequate equipment to perform cockpit and cabin air measurements. The results of that campaign, which will be used to prepare for an envisaged large-scale project in the future, are expected in autumn 2016. The Department will follow with interest the progress of that work; indeed, I will update the hon. Gentleman when I get further information.

At national level, the aviation health unit within the medical department of the CAA will continue to monitor issues relating to cabin air, as part of its wider role as specialist adviser to the Government on aviation health issues.

As I said, EASA has launched preliminary work, and we hope to carry that further. I point out that the UK is not the only country in the world conducting research in this field. For example, the German authorities, as well as the country’s biggest airline, Lufthansa, have conducted similar research projects to the ones mentioned here, and they have arrived at the same conclusions. That is not to say that the industry is complacent—far from it. New technologies for improving the filtration and monitoring of cabin air are emerging all the time, and as we have discussed, there is a particular aircraft type, the new Boeing 787 Dreamliner, that uses a different source of air, although it must be noted that the equivalent Airbus aircraft, the A350, uses the conventional bleed-air system for cabin air sourcing.

The aviation industry is aware of the concerns that have been raised and is continuously reviewing the current practices, as well as developing options for future improvements. The Government are working together with the industry to support that momentum. The joint Government and industry funded aerospace research and development programme, supported by the Aerospace Technology Institute and Innovate UK, is supporting projects in related areas, including air and oil systems, electronic technologies and system health monitoring, all of which will lead to enhanced cabin air quality as one of the outcomes. The Aerospace Technology Institute is currently working with industry to launch further projects in these areas.

In 2013, industry and Government, working together through the Aerospace Growth Partnership, made a joint funding commitment worth £2.1 billion in total for aerospace research and development over seven years. That was protected, and extended by an additional £900 million over six years to 2025-26, in the spending review in 2015. The industry has committed to matching the investment from the Government in this area. The industry certainly understands the importance of research and development aimed at improving overall safety. However, for the industry to drastically change the way the aircraft are air-conditioned or, indeed, to change the lubricants, there would have to be clear evidence that shows that cabin air quality is harmful to crew and passengers. The current practice of using air from the compression stage of the engine—bleed air—has been shown to be an effective, fuel-efficient and reliable way of providing air to the cabin.

I hope that I have demonstrated that the issue is taken seriously by all parties involved. However, as it is a complex issue with little evidence to show that a change is needed, it will take time to find new and innovative solutions that would be accepted by all. We certainly need to co-ordinate international research and I will raise that with the CAA at our next meeting. I will also discuss the issue with the British Airline Pilots Association, although I have to say that the issue has not necessarily been very high on its agenda at some meetings I have had with it. Maybe debates such as this will further raise awareness among those who work in the industry.

Finally, I urge a note of caution on the precautionary principle. I was a member of the European Parliament’s Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy and, very often, the precautionary principle was used as a way of taking action on something for which there was no supporting evidence. I cite the case of phthalates used as a softening substance in PVC for medical uses and for things such as babies’ bottles. The outcome of making a change based on no evidence other than some very limited migration evidence actually resulted in products that were not as suitable and could have jeopardised people’s treatment. We need to be very careful about using the precautionary principle. We need to look at the actual evidence. I am pleased that research has been carried out, and more research will be carried out.

Once again, I stress how seriously I take the issue and how important it is that we get more evidence. I thank the hon. Members for Stalybridge and Hyde and for Brent Central, and my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady) for securing the debate and for providing us with the opportunity to discuss this important and, to many, very personal issue.

HS2 Phase One Hybrid Bill Select Committee Report

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Thursday 10th March 2016 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

I am today publishing the Department’s response to the second special report from the Select Committee for the HS2 Phase One hybrid Bill that was published on 22 February 2016.

The Select Committee was tasked with considering petitions from those specially and directly affected by the Bill and subsequent additional provisions to the Bill. Their second special report marked the culmination of over 18 months of Committee deliberations which began in July 2014. Over the course of the Select Committee process, 2586 petitions were lodged against the original Bill and the subsequent five additional provisions to the Bill. The Select Committee heard approximately 1,600 of those petitions in formal session, with the remainder withdrawing, or choosing not to appear before the Select Committee, mainly as a result of successful prior negotiation with HS2 Ltd.

Where the Select Committee considered it appropriate to do so, they suggested modifications to the Bill powers, the provision of specific undertakings and assurances to petitioners or the provision of additional mitigation works. During the Select Committee process, five additional provisions were made to the Bill and many of these contained further mitigation measures that were agreed with petitioners and the Select Committee during the course of the hearings. The Select Committee’s recent report summarises their hearings and contains further general recommendations as well as recommendations on specific petitions in relation to those issues where they felt an intervention was required.

In responding to the Select Committee, we have endeavoured to be as constructive as possible and have similarly aimed to confine our responses to those areas of the report where it seemed beneficial to note our agreement to the recommendation or to offer a clarification, where appropriate.

Alongside the response to the Select Committee report, we are also publishing a number of additional documents today. These are the Statement Of Reasons Command Paper, an equalities impact assessment consultation response report, together with supporting documents and a water framework directive assessment update.

The Statement Of Reasons Command Paper, which is entitled the “Government overview of the case for HS2 Phase One and its environmental impacts”, is required by Parliamentary Standing Order 224A in order to assist the House during the third Reading of the HS2 Phase One hybrid Bill. This document summarises the work that has already been done to assess, control and mitigate the environmental impacts of HS2 Phase One, and explains why the Government continue to take the view that the HS2 Phase One project is worthy of its support.

Two equalities impact assessment (EQIA) updates were published for consultation in 2015 to take account of changes to the Phase One Bill scheme made by the additional provisions to the Bill. The summary report that is being published today provides HS2 Ltd’s response to issues raised by consultation responses received on the two EQIA updates. I am also placing some supporting documents into the Libraries of both Houses and these are the original hybrid Bill EQIA, the EQIA update consultations for Euston and the update consultation on the remainder of the Phase One route and the summaries of responses to both consultations.

The Phase One hybrid Bill was assessed for compliance against the water framework directive (WFD) objectives in a series of published documents. Since then, the Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled in favour of a challenge against a WFD objective assessment process. In doing so, the Court of Justice clarified the way in which compliance with the directive’s key environmental objectives should be interpreted in the assessment of new developments and scheme proposals. In light of the ruling, the WFD assessment for the proposed scheme has been reviewed and updated and we are publishing this today.

Copies of the response to the Select Committee can be found on the www.gov.uk website. Copies of the statement of reasons, the equalities impact assessment consultation response report, together with supporting documents, and the water framework directive assessment update will be made available in the Libraries of both Houses.

[HCWS602]

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Thursday 10th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

2. What steps he is taking to provide funding for large local transport projects.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

The Department is providing over £7 billion for the devolved local growth fund, which will fund more than 500 local transport projects by the end of this Parliament. It now includes £475 million for transformational local transport schemes that are too large for the devolved allocations. We will be providing further details very soon.

[Mr Jackson]

May I make a plea to the Minister? Will he tell me when some of the £75 million funding from the roads investment strategy will be used to reduce the noise pollution that has already been identified by Highways England on the A47 Soke Parkway through Peterborough, adjacent to Apsley Way and Bradwell Road?

[Mr Goodwill]

The A47 is part of the strategic road network and is therefore not covered by the money that I have just announced. However, in November 2014, the Chancellor announced £300 million for the A47, including the Wansford to Sutton section between the A1 and Peterborough. On the question of noise pollution, the Government have challenged Highways England to mitigate noise at more than 1,000 locations. Measures that could be used include noise reduction surfacing, tree planting and barriers.

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

Transport for the North published a report this week that looks into local and regional links as well as access to the national network. It puts forward ambitious schemes for improvements in rail transport between Liverpool, Manchester and Leeds and for better access to the High Speed 2 network. What kind of co-ordination will there be to ensure that this happens?

[Mr Goodwill]

It is particularly important that we co-ordinate rail and road systems, particularly in regard to freight, and HS2 will open up a large number of additional freight paths that will take pressure off the roads. Co-ordination will be absolutely vital and we are working with Transport for the North and the leaders of the great cities of the north, including Liverpool, to make sure that that happens. Indeed, I shall be in Liverpool later today.

[Rebecca Harris (Castle Point) (Con)]

18. My hon. Friend will be aware of the absurd situation on Canvey where, although residents can virtually kick a football at the new DP World container port, it is easier to access the tens of thousands of jobs there by travelling from the east end of London. What support can he give my residents on Canvey Island who have been campaigning for a third road for many decades?

[Mr Goodwill]

I very much agree that new road infrastructure can transform local economies and boost access to jobs, which is why we have given significant funding and freedoms to local areas to take forward schemes such as this. We will be announcing further funding opportunities very soon. I hope that my hon. Friend will continue to make the case for that project with Essex County Council and the South East local enterprise partnership. The port facilities in her constituency are absolutely superb, and it is important that we give them the infrastructure that they need to back them up.

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

Large local infrastructure projects have been the hallmark of the Scottish Government since they came to power in 2007. There have been too many to list here, but they include the Borders rail link, the Tarbert to Campbelltown trunk link road and, in my own constituency, the dualling of the A9 between Perth and Inverness. According to independent analysis, Scotland is investing twice as much per person in transport as England. That includes active travel projects such as cycling, on which we are already way ahead of the UK. Last year, this Government announced a new £680 million access fund up to 2021. Can they clear up the confusion about when that fund is going to go ahead?

[Mr Goodwill]

It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman did not mention the high-speed rail line between Edinburgh and Glasgow, which has been conveniently shelved. He may be aware that SNP-controlled Perth and Kinross Council has decided that potholes now have to be at least 60 mm deep—that is nearly 2 and a half inches—before it will consider filling them in. That indicates what its priorities might be in some cases.

[Drew Hendry]

The Minister and I may disagree on many things, but one thing that we do agree on is the benefits of cycling. The cycle-to-work scheme has been a popular and progressive policy, and credit is due to the Government for continuing with it. However, in the summer Budget, the Treasury said that it was actively monitoring salary sacrifice arrangements because they were becoming increasingly popular. In Scotland, progressive policies that work and are popular are something that the Government there support. Will he confirm that he is working to ensure that the Chancellor will protect cycle-to-work schemes in the forthcoming Budget?

[Mr Goodwill]

The hon. Gentleman may have to be patient and wait for the Budget, but certainly schemes such as the cycle-to-work scheme are very good. Large numbers of people who have bicycles are using them to get to work and it is a great way of getting people fit and active, as well as reducing congestion on our roads.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

6. When the Government plan to make a decision on the location of a UK spaceport.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

The Government’s ambition is for the UK to have the facilities and regulatory environment in place for commercial spaceflight during this Parliament. My Department is currently working closely with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to assess and understand the technical requirements, with the aim of announcing the process for spaceport selection later this year.

[Brendan O’Hara]

As the Member for Argyll and Bute, I have championed and will continue to champion the Machrihanish bid to become the UK’s spaceport. The community-owned facility has considerable advantages, including a 3 km runway and the overwhelming backing of the community. When will the next stage criteria be announced by the Department for Transport? Can the Minister assure all those who are working hard to bring the project to Machrihanish that the Government are still 100% committed to the creation of a UK spaceport?

[Mr Goodwill]

I can certainly confirm that. In fact, the Department for Transport has provided £5 million to fund initial phases of work. It is also important that we work with potential operators to check out the facilities that they might want to ensure that they can be provided. It is a great opportunity. With companies such an Inmarsat, Clyde Space north of the border, and Surrey Satellite Technology, we are already world leaders in space technology, so this will be a further step towards pushing against the barriers to British involvement in the space race.

[Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his recent visit to Cornwall Newquay airport where he saw the excellent facilities we have there to host the spaceport. Will he confirm that he went away with the very clear message that Cornwall not only can accommodate but is ambitious to be the English bid for the spaceport?

[Mr Goodwill]

I certainly did get a very clear message and was taken up by the enthusiasm of the people in Newquay. I was recently at Prestwick, as well, so I know that other airports are interested. I did notice when I was at Prestwick that there was no shortage of slots to use; it seemed quite quiet when I was there.

[Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

7. What steps he plans to take to ensure that rural communities have access to regular bus services.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

12. When construction of High Speed 2 is planned to begin.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

A great deal of work has already been completed, and actual construction will start next year.

[Mr Baker]

Tempted as I am to propose that the Government build HS2 sometime in the Parliament after next, when it will be seen for the white elephant that it is, could the Minister reassure me that there is time enough to deal with all the environmental impacts of HS2, such as the construction impact on the historic village of West Wycombe in my constituency?

[Mr Goodwill]

My hon. Friend did promise me an impish supplementary question and I was not disappointed. The fact is that we have promised that there will be no net environmental loss during the construction. Indeed, we plan to plant 2 million trees as part of the phase 1 construction. I think it will be a project that we can be proud of and one that communities up and down the country will value as part of our economic plans.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

I rather like elephants, white or otherwise. Let us look at the building of phase 2 of HS2. The Secretary of State has said in the past that serious consideration would be given to the possibility of beginning construction on the northern part of phase 2 between Sheffield and Leeds in parallel with work on the southern part of that leg. How much serious consideration has been given to that, and is there a possibility that work between Sheffield and Leeds could begin before the very end of the project?

[Mr Goodwill]

It is important that we prioritise the Birmingham route, because that is where the congestion is and where the real benefits are. Let us not forget that those trains will run through to serve stations in the north and in Scotland from day one. It is very important that we look at how we can deliver that. Indeed, some of the investment at the station locations in the north can go ahead even before the trains reach those locations.

[Callum McCaig (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

13. What steps he has taken to reduce waiting times at driving test centres.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

The UK Airprox Board investigated 23 near misses between aircraft and drones in six months last year. Of those, 12 were deemed to involve a serious risk of collision. The British Airline Pilots Association wants the Government to run tests on what would happen if a drone were sucked into an engine or hit a windscreen, and the Government have had a working group on the matter since 2013. So why is it only this summer that Ministers will say anything? Should we not know by now what tests have already been done, what regulatory and other options are being considered and when Ministers expect any agreed option to be put into practice?

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

I assure the House that we take that matter very seriously indeed, and we are aware of the risk of a collision with a drone. Yesterday, I met representatives of the British Airline Pilots Association, and that was one of the topics that came up. As the Secretary of State said in answer to an earlier question, severe penalties are in place for people who get involved with such activities. There are a number of technologies, such as geo-fencing, which would prevent those aircraft from entering sensitive airspace. We take the matter very seriously, and we are considering the best action to take.

[Richard Burden]

On a different but also topical subject, I was in Kent yesterday talking to businesses that had felt at first hand the traffic chaos surrounding 32 days of Operation Stack last year. I know that the Government are consulting on lorry parks and junction improvements for future years, but what are they going to do to prevent a repeat of last year’s scenes from occurring in 2016? I am not asking the Minister to tell me who he is meeting; I am asking him what the action plan is.

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

T2. On 4 February this year, hundreds of my constituents were gridlocked on the M6 and the M42 for an entire day following an accident. Would the Minister meet me to discuss lessons to be learned from that day of chaos and examine proposals to open the M6 toll for free or for a nominal charge, but only when such crisis situations occur?

[Mr Goodwill]

There is an agreement in place whereby M6 tolls can be lifted in the event of a major failure that is likely to lead to prolonged inoperability of the surrounding roads on the strategic road network. The Government are looking at options over that agreement, but there are substantial cost, policy and value-for-money implications involved with de-tolling, which we are currently considering. As part of the process, I am more than happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the matter.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

T4. With an estimated skills gap of some 50,000 HGV drivers predicted by the end of this Parliament, does the Minister agree that it would make sense for the Government to contribute towards the £3,500 training fee required for licences? Not only would that help to plug the skills gap, but it would mean more people working and paying tax, and it would reduce welfare.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

T6. I know that the Government keep the status of trust ports under periodic review. Poole, which is a trust port, is a successful port. Such a status has the support of the local community, and indeed of its Member of Parliament. I hope the shipping Minister understands that.

[Mr Goodwill]

May I first put on the record our gratitude to my hon. Friend for the very hard work he carried out as a member of the Select Committee on the hybrid HS2 Bill? We occasionally ask trust ports to review their status. All the feedback I have had from his trust port certainly shows that the trust port model is working well, and we would not wish to interfere with that.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

It is clearly in the public interest for a person reporting somebody as unfit to drive to have anonymity. However, does the Secretary of State agree that anonymity should be rescinded where the allegation appears to be malicious, and that the reporting form should clearly state that an accuser will be liable to prosecution if false accusations are made about an individual?

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kinahan (South Antrim) (UUP)]

May I thank the Minister of State for his visit to Northern Ireland? It was good to see everyone in the Union working together. He visited Belfast International airport, Lough Neagh Rescue and Wrightbus. Will he use his influence to help the various road and rail projects we saw, and help with things such as air passenger duty, enterprise zones and, of course, one day having a new runway here to improve links to Northern Ireland?

[Mr Goodwill]

It was great to visit Ulster and see some of the good news about the 300 new jobs at Belfast International airport. Ryanair is now based at that airport, with direct flights to Gatwick and new routes in the pipeline, including to Milan and Berlin. It was great to visit Northern Ireland, and I look forward to going again.

[David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)]

T8. In my constituency, a link road from the M6 to Heysham port will open within the next 12 months. Are there any plans to trunk that road, given that it is a strategic route, and will my right hon. Friend make a statement on that?

High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill (Fifth sitting)

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Tuesday 8th March 2016 Public Bill Committees

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope; a very good morning to you.

The intention of the new clause, as the hon. Member for Middlesbrough has said, is to require the nominated undertaker to have regard to the design panel’s recommendations during the design work for phase 1 of HS2. The design panel was established in November 2015. I hope I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurances he seeks, and that he will not feel it necessary to press the new clause to a vote.

We recognise that great design is essential for High Speed 2. We want it to make the country proud and show the world what great British design can do. For that reason, HS2 Ltd has created a design vision for the railway, and we have set up an independent design panel to provide advice on and a critique of the development of HS2, to help it achieve its design vision.

The remit of the panel is based on widely accepted industry best practice, as set out by the Design Council and other design bodies. HS2 Ltd, in designing the railway, is required by the Department’s development agreement to incorporate the recommendations of the design panel, where this is practical. Binding assurances to this effect have been given to local authorities, including Birmingham City Council, the Greater London Authority, and others. The independent design panel is only just being established, but HS2 Ltd would be expected to follow any recommendations made by the successor of the design panel, and the development agreement would be amended accordingly.

I have to say we made some mistakes at the start of the scheme, when a number of cut-and-paste viaducts were used to indicate the line of route. Some communities were alarmed to see viaducts of that type, which had no design element incorporated in them; they looked like concrete boxes on legs. That is not the intention. We intend to have some iconic designs, and I think the design of the railway will be awesome in places; in others it will be more sympathetic to the location. The design panel is integral to delivering that. Therefore, I believe that the Opposition’s concerns have already been met, and that the new clause is not necessary.

[Andy McDonald]

I am extremely grateful to the Minister, who set out with great clarity the fact that there is a requirement to incorporate the recommendations, with a raft of binding assurances. I am content with that, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 21

Passenger services: public sector operation

(1) Section 23 of the Railways Act 1993 (franchising of passenger services) does not apply to services operated on the whole or part of the high speed rail line so provided for in this Act.

(2) Passengers services on the whole or part of the high speed rail line so provided for in this Act shall be provided by a publicly owned railway company.

(3) In this section, “publicly owned railway company” has the meaning given to it in section 151(1) of the Railways Act 1993. —(Andy McDonald.)

This new clause would require passenger services operating on the whole or part of the high speed rail line to be provided by a publicly owned railway company.

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I did not intend to speak, but as the debate is so interesting I cannot resist the chance to say a few things. In my experience, this debate always reflects pre-existing ideological positions and, frankly, does not often tend to delve into the intricacies of what is best for running a railway. That can be seen in all parts of the House of Commons whenever this debate comes up.

For Government Members there are some difficult facts about our present system that need to be addressed. The existing railway in the UK could not strictly be described as a privatised system. It is a hybrid system; the way that it was initially privatised secured that. A true privatised system would perhaps have been to bring back the Big Four railway companies and have them compete against each other, but that is not what we have at the moment.

There has to be acknowledgment that the system depends on public subsidy. A railway system for a country such as ours would always need a large amount of subsidy. The way that we do that now is to give the subsidy to Network Rail for the infrastructure. When we talk about the francishees paying premiums to the taxpayer, it is because we set the access charges according to the subsidy that we give. It is still a system that requires a net contribution from the taxpayer.

We also have to reflect on the fact that the existing hybrid system is as it is because the initial privatisation simply could not cope with the liabilities. Railtrack simply could not deliver on what was promised, even in the initial honeymoon period. There has to be a reflection that East Coast did work extremely well, even if it was initially intended for a limited period. In effect, many of our railway operations are publicly owned; they are just publicly owned by foreign Governments. Their subsidiary companies operate our system. In addition, our ticketing system is bizarre and complex, and much more expensive than in comparable European countries.

The Opposition and those who traditionally push a nationalised position have to reflect that British Rail was a poor service. We cannot look back to any golden era; I have never pretended that that existed. Equally, when we talk about East Coast we have to reflect that that operated within an overall system of incentives and penalties; that is the privatised operations system that we have.

Fundamentally, we have to recognise that franchises are contracts. Contracts can be good; they can be bad. Some of our initial franchise agreements on the railway were frankly abysmal in the system they operated. Others that have been let more recently have been more effective.

I will vote for the new clause for two reasons: integration and flexibility. Railway systems around the world tend to be more successful with a higher degree of integration between infrastructure and operations. Our existing system causes real problems, and many of the problems for passengers come from that lack of integration.

As the right hon. Member for Chelmsford said, flexibility is the key issue. He mentioned the additional operations from Scarborough being run by Virgin. Although that is welcome, flexibility is the crucial problem with the franchise system. Northern has had huge demand in terms of passenger numbers—it has happened in my constituency. The economy has fundamentally changed and there is huge demand for rail services—in many ways it is a golden era for the railway. However, the franchise agreement could not respond to that demand. It was let on the assumption of zero growth, and I would not have complaints about the people and the process for doing that. Yet we have all the problems of a bureaucratic, nationalised system and none of the attractions of a market system, which would respond to a price signal from the market. That is why we have problems of overcrowding, poor services and inability to meet demand.

There are many examples of successful, publicly-owned railways around the world. I recently got back from Hong Kong, which is not renowned as a socialist utopia—it is a dynamic, capitalist part of the world economy, with a publicly-owned railway. We can always look to examples from that country; indeed, we need to look around the world for best practice in running a railway. I am comfortable with the new clause, because we need to look at how best we can integrate our railway, to deliver the best deal for passengers. It should be permissive: we always need to leave the door open for a more integrated system, even if we have our existing hybrid system at the moment, which—based on the length of those franchise agreements—will be with us for a considerable time. This conversation needs to be focused more on the best way to run a railway and less on pre-existing ideological positions.

[Mr Goodwill]

The intention of the proposed new clause is to require passenger services operating on whole or part of the high speed line to be provided by a publicly-owned railway company, essentially nationalising HS2 train services. I regularly travel on the east coast main line—indeed, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough and I travelled on the same train on Monday morning, on the Grand Central service, which was set up by buccaneering free market innovator Tom Clift, who is sadly no longer with us, and his team. That successful open-access operator has been taken over by Deutsche Bahn. It regularly tops the league in passenger satisfaction and punctuality. Most of the staff come from Sunderland and they are a model of the customer service that we expect on our railways.

The proposed clause would restrict the operating structure of HS2 at this early stage—essentially seeking to nationalise the HS2 rail service, which is against the broader principles of how successful rail services in the UK are currently operating. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford has done my job for me in making the case to reject this new clause.

With regard to the commercial operation of phase 1 of HS2, it is imperative that we keep our options open. With the line not due to open until 2026, decisions on the commercial model to operate HS2 are some time away. Whatever those decisions might be, they will be made to seek the best value. This is about delivering the best service at the best price for the passenger and the taxpayer, not pandering to outdated 1970s socialist dogma. The rail franchising system is designed to deliver benefits for passengers and taxpayers, which are realised through competition. Since privatisation the rail industry has been transformed, with passenger journeys more than doubling over the past 20 years, from 750 million to around 1.6 billion. We believe that this remains the right approach overall in delivering the best value for the country and tax and fare payers.

The model that is being delivered in the UK is being emulated around Europe: for example, National Express is operating two franchises in Germany. As we have heard, the east coast main line is extending new services to Middlesbrough and Sunderland, and we have heard this week that a direct service to Scarborough is being considered. If one needed an image that encapsulates what is wrong with British Rail, it would be the pacer train, which was built by British Rail under a nationalised British Leyland. It was an infinitely unpopular train, and when this Government came to power we gave a pledge to phase it out.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

The Minister and I have had this exchange about the pacer train before. Has the longevity of the pacer train not been due in part to the fact that they are very cheap to run? Under the franchised model, it has been very hard to get rid of them, unless there has been an explicit overruling of the market system by Ministers. The private operations—the market—cannot get rid of the pacer trains; it has to be a political decision.

[Mr Goodwill]

The pacer train was the offspring of the position that a state-run railway can often find itself in, faced with other demands on public sector finances, not least the health service. Built on the cheap, with single-axle units without bogies and the correct suspension, the pacer trains were never going to be fit for purpose and were very unpopular. I am delighted that the Government are going to phase them out.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

Surely the Minister recognises that he, or certainly his Secretary of State, has had explicitly to overrule the civil service—by ministerial direction—to get rid of the pacer trains. There has had to be an explicit political decision, because the market alone would not have got rid of it.

[Mr Goodwill]

Another factor in our ability to phase out the pacer is the fact that with new rolling stock coming in in so many areas, we have other rolling stock cascading down to replace the pacers. This is a direct result of the investment in the rolling stock. On the east coast main line we look forward very much to the IEP trains built by Hitachi in the north-east, which, I think, will be a phenomenal improvement to that service and free up rolling stock for some of the new services that will be provided on the non-electrified part of the network.

Section 24 of the Railways Act 1993 states that the appropriate designating authority—in the case of HS2, the Secretary of State—may by order grant exemption from designation of a service to require a franchise under section 23(1) of that Act. Therefore, if so decided, the HS2 service will not require a franchise. However, as I have already stressed, the commercial model to operate the HS2 infrastructure and train service are yet to be determined. To speculate, it may well involve some sort of transitional phase in the early years.

With the ability to exempt a service from the franchise requirement set out in the Railways Act 1993, I do not believe it is necessary to include the proposed new clause in the Bill. With that explanation, I hope the hon. Member will withdraw his proposed new clause, although I am not too optimistic that he will.

--- Later in debate ---

This is a straightforward political choice; we respectfully acknowledge that. I caution against describing as outdated the desire of the British public to see their own railway services and railway infrastructure run by the state. They look to other countries. The Minister alluded to the breaking out of the franchise system across the European Union, but I think he would have to concede that the structures in Germany, France or Spain look starkly different from the one that obtains in the UK at the present time. He may be right that there is some development, but as we speak, we are very much an outlier in terms of the proportion of private franchise operations running our rail services.

[Mr Goodwill]

I suggest that rather than being an outlier, we are leading the way.

[Andy McDonald]

That is an ingenious way of interpreting stark distinctions between the United Kingdom and, for example, Germany. Deutsche Bahn provides the majority of infrastructure services in Germany, and it is coming into the UK for the rich pickings and to take our taxpayers’ investment back to Germany’s railway system.

I politely caution the Minister against describing our amendment as representative of an outdated “1970s socialist dogma”. If that was right, there would be some cause for concern, because this idea is extremely popular with the general public. Surveys done in recent times have suggested there is concern about the fact that taxpayers’ money is being used to fund state-owned companies such as Deutsche Bahn, Nederlandse Spoorwegen and Keolis. If the Minister wishes to ignore that, that is a matter for him. We have had a good debate, but this is such an important new clause for HS2 that we wish to press it to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

From nationalisation and re-privatisation to perhaps something a little less contentious. The new clause concerns the role of the construction commissioner. I will not read into the record its nine subsections, but it would allow the commissioner to consider complaints without being limited to the amount of claims for compensation. It would also require the commissioner to be appointed by a process of open competition.

In January, HS2 Ltd announced that it was looking to recruit a construction commissioner to investigate any issues that arise during construction of the much-needed new infrastructure project that cannot be resolved through its corporate complaints procedure. In December 2015, it published an information paper that outlined proposals for the commissioner, which stated:

“The Secretary of State will ensure that a Construction Commissioner is appointed by the time construction begins. If people have a complaint during construction that cannot be resolved through the nominated undertaker’s complaints process, they will have the option of referring their complaint to the Construction Commissioner.”

That is a welcome move. I note that during the construction of Crossrail—the Elizabeth line—a construction complaints commissioner performed an equivalent function. There is, however, no reference to the role of the HS2 construction commissioner in the Bill, so I want to press the Minister on what the commissioner’s role will include and exclude with reference to what the information paper states is expected.

The commissioner’s role is not to include the consideration of claims over £10,000. On 26 February 2016, in answer to written question 28079, the Minister said:

“This figure is provisional, based on other infrastructure projects, and will be subject to review by the steering group.”

I invite him to explain whether the limit should be set at £10,000. Does he think that might constrain the commissioner’s effectiveness in investigating issues that arise during construction?

The information paper also stated that the commissioner’s role will not be to consider

“matters considered by Parliament in approving the project”.

I fear that that may be unnecessarily restrictive and could be exploited to prevent the commissioner from carrying out his or her role effectively. The Bill has a long and complicated legislative history, so I am concerned that a liberal interpretation of that would allow the commissioner to consider hardly any complaints, as almost every issue will have been considered at one time or another by Parliament in approving the project.

It is important that the commissioner is not unnecessarily restricted in his or her role, so I invite the Minister to clarify the commissioner’s role in relation to matters considered by Parliament in approving the project. If the commissioner is not to consider “matters considered by Parliament” or claims “over £10,000”, there would not appear to be a lot for them to get their teeth into. I want to probe those issues and try to secure clarification and reassurance. I look forward to what the Minister has to say.

[Mr Goodwill]

I will say at the outset that I share the hon. Gentleman’s wish for an effective construction commissioner, and I reassure him that after an open advertisement for candidates HS2 is in the process of appointing one. His or her role will be similar to the one set out in the new clause, but with some exceptions.

The appointment will address the points covered in subsections (1) and (2) of the new clause. The matters covered in subsection (3) will be limited to small claims, as it is more appropriate for larger claims to be dealt with through existing legal processes, such as the lands chamber of the upper tribunal.

Matters set out in subsection (4) will be dealt with in the appointment, except where a settlement deed has been offered, as this provides a direct contractual route for claims. The appointment will align with subsection (5). Under subsection (6), the appointment will be made with the involvement of an independent body—the chief executive of the Civil Engineering Contractors Association; and the contract of appointment will stress the complete independence of the commissioner. With regard to subsection (7), the appointment process is under way, and HS2 Ltd expects to interview candidates this week, I believe.

Under subsection (8), the construction commissioner will provide an annual report and other reports as required on the activities of the construction commissioner’s office and its statement of accounts to the independent body, which will be made up of a variety of project stakeholders. It may be that thereafter the independent body will make the documents publicly available. Finally, under subsection (9), the appointment will continue to the end of construction, and it is anticipated that a full final report will be prepared.

I have not received representations about either increasing or reducing the £10,000 limit, but I would be keen to consider anything that provided a chance to look at the matter again. I suspect that the commissioner might be the best person to review that and make recommendations. I believe that the points that the hon. Gentleman made have been addressed and are superfluous. I hope that he will withdraw the new clause.

[Andy McDonald]

I am extremely grateful to the Minister for that thorough analysis of the new clause. He referred to every subsection and it would be churlish of me not to acknowledge that those points have been addressed in full measure. I am reassured to know that there is a residual ability to progress larger claims by alternative means. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 23

Designing Euston as a single integrated Station

(1) The new high speed platforms to the west of the existing Euston Station must be designed as part of a plan for a single fully integrated Euston station which provides platforms for HS2, mainline and Crossrail 2 services.

(2) Full integration means, but is not limited to—

(a) east-west and north-south permeability, with at grade accessible routes across and around the station for pedestrians and cyclists accessing the local areas,

(b) integration into the existing local transport network, and

(c) the potential for over-site development across the whole Euston station site and tracks.

(3) In developing the design for Euston Station, the Nominated Undertaker must consult with—

(a) the local community and local businesses,

(b) the London Borough of Camden,

(c) passenger groups,

(d) the rail industry,

(e) Transport for London and the Greater London Assembly, and

(f) any other party which the Nominated Undertaker deems appropriate.—(Andy McDonald.)

This new clause requires the design for Euston Station to be approached in a holistic fashion, ensuring that plans for the HS2 platforms do not limit future integration with and redevelopment of the existing mainline station at Euston, nor with plans for a Crossrail 2 station in the area, or the potential for over-site development. It would require the Nominated Undertaker to consult widely on the design of Euston Station.

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

Thereafter, the register of undertakings will record undertakings given by the Secretary of State. New clause 24 would simply serve to reinforce those undertakings, assurances and commitments with the force of law. If the Minister can assure me that all the commitments contained within the Euston area plan and elsewhere, as described in the new clause, will have the force of law without appearing on the face of the Bill, or if he can assure me of their observance by the nominated undertaker, I may be persuaded not to push the new clause to a vote. I await his response with great interest.

[Mr Goodwill]

Euston is a tremendous opportunity with regard to HS2 and the other developments that will be taking place in the area. It is an opportunity that we should grab with both hands, to maximise its potential. I hope that Camden is signed up to that ambition too.

Local authorities up and down the line are in the process of moving from a “Stop HS2” stance to one of asking, “How can we maximise the benefit for our community?” I think that communities would have expected their local authorities and their councillors to take that initial line, but to then start to engage more fully at the necessary stage. Indeed, I have met with the leader of Camden Council, and she is someone with whom I can do business. We have seen the transformational effect that station development has had at King’s Cross, and I would like to see that echoed in what we do at Euston.

With regard to the specific wording that the hon. Gentleman referred to, I can reassure him that this is not designed to be a gagging order. This wording is an appropriate condition that is included in agreements where petition issues have been met, and aims to make sure that the same issues are not raised in the Lords at hybrid Committee stage. It should be remembered that as a planning authority Camden can object during the detailed design stage of the process.

Regarding new clause 23, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we have always been cognisant of the need to integrate the new station with the existing transport networks in the area, and to augment them where necessary. On that basis, this clause is unnecessary, as our current proposals for the design of the HS2 Euston station are already designed to dovetail with various potential design concepts for the redevelopment of the conventional side of Euston station by Network Rail, at what we call the B2 stage of the station redevelopment. In particular, our current design, as already set out in the Bill, will enable future east-west permeability across the whole station, and enhancements to the foundations to support future oversite development on the new station.

The hon. Gentleman said that this was a funding challenge, but of course that funding will unlock tremendous development opportunities over the site. The design makes the necessary provision for future passenger connectivity to Crossrail 2, the latter being a strategy that has been developed in close collaboration with London Underground. Incidentally, of course the development at Euston will also result in a massive improvement to the facilities available for London Underground passengers, ensuring better passenger flows and a subway connection from Euston Square station, which currently involves crossing streets.

Furthermore, the design for Euston as set out in the Bill is already set to provide not only the new station for HS2 but sufficient additional capacity for interchange with London Underground and other transport networks, in order to serve HS2 growth as well as growth in underlying demand in the longer term. Indeed, when the first phase of HS2 is open, we anticipate around 30% of passengers alighting at Old Oak Common, as that will be a better station by which to access some of the London destinations and Heathrow airport. That will take some of the pressure off Euston. There may well be a good opportunity for some more development to be carried out by Network Rail while it makes use of the lack of pressure on that station, which is already one of the busiest in the country. It is the Government’s intention that Network Rail would, in this context, develop its own proposals to ensure a joined-up vision across the whole station and support the objectives for the surrounding area.

As for subsection (3) of the proposed new clause, we have provided assurances to the London borough of Camden and Transport for London about working with both these parties, along with Network Rail and the GLA, under the auspices of bodies including the Euston station strategic redevelopment board and the Euston integrated programme board. This will comprehensively address the hon. Gentleman’s objective here.

New clause 24 is unnecessary as the Bill already establishes a special planning regime for the approval of certain details, including the design and external appearance of stations in accordance with schedule 17. The London borough of Camden will be the determining authority for these approvals, and the Euston area plan will be material to its determination in so far as it is material to the matter for approval and the grounds specified in the Bill. Any oversite development above and around the station and tracks will be determined outside of Bill processes, under normal planning processes for which the London borough of Camden will be the determining authority.

The Euston area plan provides the local planning policy framework for deciding submissions for approval of relevant details in accordance with the planning regime established under schedule 17, for approval of over-site development and any other development outside the Bill powers. I should also note that we have of course been working closely with Transport for London to ensure that the approach to transport planning for London is joined up, and specifically that planning for passenger journeys from origin to destination is co-ordinated.

Many of the points I mentioned in my response to new clause 23 from the hon. Gentleman opposite are similarly relevant to new clause 25. Our current plans for the design of the HS2 Euston station already facilitate a variety of potential designs for the conventional station, allowing for the potential for connectivity with Crossrail 2, and providing for over-site development. Network Rail is committed to preparing a planning brief appropriate to the conventional side of Euston station, and is working closely with us and Transport for London to prepare proposals for the conventional station which have been co-ordinated with the new high-speed station. We support the wider vision for the Euston area. Those proposals will be promoted, funded and implemented through Network Rail’s normal control period infrastructure investment programme.

I believe that all the hon. Gentleman’s points have been addressed, so I hope that he will not press proposed new clauses 23 to 25.

[Andy McDonald]

I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I will certainly not press new clause 24, given that he kindly set out that the authority will be Camden, which is greatly reassuring. Similarly, I will not press new clause 25, because the Minister has satisfied me in that respect.

My only concern is about new clause 23. Although he has gone a considerable way towards satisfying me on the issues raised in that clause, he did say that the intention was —I do not know what the words were—to encourage Network Rail to come forward with a plan for the mainline station. I do not wish to be churlish in any way, but that qualification seemed to dilute somewhat the import and intent of new clause 23. It is not something that has been secured, so for that reason, I wish to press new clause 23 to a Division. I am content, however, not to press new clauses 24 and 25.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

I know that the rumbling of HGVs is a big issue for Camden residents, and I am most interested in what the Minister has to say. Given that the new clause is at one with the assurances given by HS2, if those assurances are to be worth any comfort to Euston residents, it is entirely consistent that such provision appear on the face of the Bill. I have framed the new clause in a way that reflects the reality of construction and in no way interferes with the operation of passenger services, so I trust it can be favourably received. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.

[Mr Goodwill]

I fully recognise and agree with the sentiment behind the new clause. It is for that precise reason that my officials have already agreed a binding assurance with the London Borough of Camden that we will maximise, as far as reasonably practical and within existing Bill powers, the volume of excavated and construction material from the construction of Euston station and approaches to be brought in and removed by rail, while balancing the wider environmental impact to the local community and passenger services. For that reason, the new clause is unnecessary.

In order to determine the level of material that could be removed by rail, further work is required with rail partners, the London Borough of Camden and Transport for London. To that end, we have further agreed to develop a plan together with the London Borough of Camden, the Greater London Authority and Transport for London for the bringing in and removal of excavated and construction materials to and from Euston station by rail. The plan will include the consideration of options that will require separate planning permissions that may be granted by the London Borough of Camden or the Greater London Authority.

I can be more helpful than the hon. Gentleman possibly anticipated on excavated materials that will need to be transported. I have some figures which relate to Euston and Camden and the central London and metropolitan area. We anticipate that the excavated material will be transported by three means: by rail, public highway haul or site haul, which means utilising the line of route to transport goods, whether by conveyor belt, by dumper trucks that do not go on the public highways, or by the rail which will be placed on the line for its operation.

In terms of the central London and metropolitan area, site haul will be 56%, or 16.9 million tonnes; rail haul will be 31%, or 9.46 million tonnes; and public highway haul will be 13% or 4 million tonnes. As the hon. Gentleman can see, that has dramatically reduced the amount of material that will impact on people as they drive their cars or ride their cycles or are pedestrians in the London area. The figures for the total of the phase 1 route will be 70% by site haul, 24% by public highway haul and only 6% by rail haul given the network. I confirm that, unfortunately, there is no opportunity to use river or canal. I think the figures will soon be published in response to a parliamentary question, posed by Lord Berkeley, and become a matter of public information. I hope the hon. Gentleman is reassured that, where possible, we are doing what we can.

It is still early days for construction materials coming on to site. We have not yet awarded contracts and are not sure from where some of the materials will be sourced. However, we will be doing everything we can to maximise the amount of materials that can come in by rail, as this will limit the impact on people living in Camden. That will be a priority on the whole line to Birmingham.

All the hon. Gentleman’s points have been addressed, and I hope the proposed new clause will be withdrawn.

[Andy McDonald]

I am grateful to the Minister, but he has not gone as far as I expected. First, he is basically saying, “the assurances and our intent entirely fit with the import of the new clause.” I cannot for the life of me see why the new clause simply cannot be embraced. Among other things, the new clause would send a positive message to the people of Camden that the Government take the issue extremely seriously. The new clause would not only set out in great detail the Government’s intent, as contained in the assurance document, but would do so in the Bill.

[Mr Goodwill]

We have been here before on the assurances that have been given. I make it clear that, as with all assurances, the Secretary of State is accountable to Parliament. If someone believes that an assurance has been breached, the recourse is through Parliament.

[Andy McDonald]

That does not negate the simple and principled point that the issue should appear slap bang on the face of the Bill. The Minister knows that disruption and pollution, which we will discuss, are significant issues for the people of Camden. Although he has given us a helpful breakdown of the figures and the methodologies for removing excavated materials from the site, he says that it is early days for the construction element. There can be no specifications for the likely figures for construction materials. That being so, it leaves a glaring gap in our knowledge of what is likely to happen. I can readily accept that the intention is to reduce road use, but this new clause would put that beyond doubt. With respect to him, the new clause is entirely consistent with the Government’s position. I am trying to be helpful by perhaps gaining some credit for the Government with the people of Camden, not only that their legitimate concerns are being rightly recognised, but that the Government are prepared to go so far as to place that assurance and guarantee slap bang where it belongs—on the face of the Bill.

Unless the Minister has been converted and will simply accept the new clause, I ask that it be put to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

There is only so much disappointment that an individual can take. I thought that I had been pretty persuasive. Nevertheless, can I have a go with another one? I trust that this will be relatively straightforward—I live in hope.

The new clause calls on the nominated undertaker to conduct meaningful engagement with communities living and working along the London-west midlands route. It is self-explanatory. It simply requires the nominated undertaker to have regard to commitments and undertakings given to the London Borough of Camden and any other relevant party to engage and consult with the communities along the route.

There are two points to make. First, there has been comprehensive and in-depth engagement with communities thus far, through the good offices of the excellent Select Committee and that exhaustive process of listening to the petitions and requests for amendments, ameliorations and compensations. The new clause would require the nominated undertaker to engage consistently and continuously with such communities once the work was under way. The hope is that that would provide continuous reassurance to those communities that, even though HS2 has passed through all its necessary legislative processes, their concerns still rank with the promoter, the nominated undertaker and, indeed, the Secretary of State, and that there will be mechanisms for those communities to engage continuously with the promoter and others, so that any concerns that arise in the course of the construction or any opportunities that arise that require further attention are indeed given that attention and those concerns or opportunities will not be ignored or lost.

Secondly, with regard to the commitments and undertakings given to the London Borough of Camden and others, the new clause would go a long way towards embedding those undertakings and commitments in the programme for the entire duration of construction and operation, and would mean that there was a statutory confirmation that those commitments and undertakings have the force of law and must be properly regarded and observed.

I trust that this new clause is not considered contentious and can be agreed. I invite the Minister to confirm that he is agreeable to such a reasonable new clause, which is entirely consistent with his own comments to date and with the assurances given by the promoter.

[Mr Goodwill]

The hon. Gentleman says that there is only so much disappointment that he can take. I hope, in that regard, that he has started to prepare himself for the 2020 general election.

The new clause would introduce a requirement for something that the promoter is already obliged to do. As part of the development of the scheme and the Select Committee process, we have provided Camden with assurances on engagement with communities. Those assurances will be binding on the nominated undertaker. As with all assurances, the Secretary is State is accountable to Parliament should they not be delivered on. We recognise that communication and engagement are critical elements of delivering the construction works, and that high-quality engagement is essential to the nominated undertaker’s relationship with communities and stakeholders.

As the new clause recognises, we have given many commitments and undertakings to local authorities to consult the communities who live and work along the line of the HS2 phase 1 route. For example, an assurance has been agreed with the London Borough of Camden that requires the nominated undertaker to engage with the London borough on the development of a community engagement framework aimed at ensuring that all sections of the community, including businesses and individuals, are made aware of developments in relation to the construction programme and local impacts. Indeed, we both attended an event in Camden at which the new facility was launched. That not only provided an opportunity for local people to find out more about the development and the impact that it might have on their lives at various stages of the construction; there was also free hot-desking available for local businesses that might need to use those facilities, and I was very pleased, when we were there, to see so many local people availing themselves of the facilities.

With that in mind, I do not believe that the new clause needs to be included in the Bill. It would duplicate existing obligations, for which we are already accountable to Parliament. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman can withdraw the new clause and, possibly, avoid further disappointment.

[Andy McDonald]

I am grateful to the Minister for that very interesting response. I assure him that the only thing that keeps me going is the knowledge that we will be successful in 2020. Perhaps I might be sitting where he is—who knows? Having said that, I hear what he says. He addressed my concerns most admirably, and I agree that, given that explanation and those assurances, it is not necessary for me to take this new clause further. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 28

Report of the cumulative impacts of HS2 works

(1) The Nominated Undertaker shall prepare a report on the cumulative impacts of the works on each community forum area along the line of route.

(2) The report shall outline the key concerns from community groups and if and how these concerns have been addressed.

(3) The report shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament no later than three months after the day on which this Act comes into force.—(Andy McDonald.)

This new clause requires the Nominated Undertaker to report on the likely cumulative impact of HS2 construction works on each community area along the route. This report is to reflect the concerns of the communities affected and outline the ways in which the Nominated Undertaker plans to address these.

Brought up, and read the First time.

High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill (Sixth sitting)

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Tuesday 8th March 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

I was more than halfway through moving the motion this morning. In fact, I was just about to finish. I remind the Committee that the new clause would require the nominated undertaker to report on the likely cumulative impact of HS2 construction works on each community along the route. Our concern is that although habitability and individual impacts were identified by HS2 Ltd, the cumulative effects of the various impacts on homes and habitability were not accounted for. The methodology, which I described in a little detail, left something to be desired. I will not repeat everything that I said immediately before the lunch break, but I indicate that I intend to press the new clause to a vote.

Finally, there is currently no assessment of the cumulative impacts where the individual impacts are below the set limits. There is also no assessment of the possible knock-on impacts of mitigation measures. We discussed the impact in a particular set of circumstances that I described by way of example. The new clause would require the nominated undertaker to address those concerns by publishing a report on the likely cumulative impact of HS2 construction works on each community area along the route that includes the key concerns expressed by community groups, and whether and how those concerns have been addressed.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

The new clause would introduce a requirement to repeat work that has already been undertaken and that has been scrutinised by the Select Committee. The Bill, when deposited, was accompanied by an environmental statement that reported the likely significant environmental effects of the construction and operation of phase 1 of HS2. The statement reported the likely significant effects of the scheme on matters including noise, air quality, traffic and ecology. The environmental statement was drafted so that people in the communities along the route could understand the likely effects in their area.

The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 require that environmental statements report cumulative effects. Such effects were reported in the HS2 environmental assessment, which has been found to be compliant with the regulations. Therefore, subsection (1) of the new clause is unnecessary, as an environmental impact assessment has already been prepared. The assessment reported the environmental effects of the scheme on each community, including the cumulative effects. There would be no benefit in repeating that exercise.

Throughout the development of HS2, the concerns of communities along the route that may be affected have been at the front of our minds. We take those concerns very seriously and have sought to address them through changes to the scheme and through commitments that mitigate those concerns. In preparing the environmental statement, HS2 Ltd met local communities through a series of community forum meetings, where people raised issues and concerns with the proposed schemes. Those concerns were reported in the community forum area reports in the environmental statement. The key concerns of communities along the route have therefore been identified and set out.

Again, during the petitioning process, local concerns were raised by individuals, community groups and local authorities. Those concerns were considered through the Select Committee process and, where appropriate, have been addressed by alterations to the scheme or by commitments to mitigate impacts. We believe that the concerns of communities along the route have been reported and are well understood, and that commitments have been given to address them. The requirement in the new clause to report the concerns of communities and how those concerns are being addressed is unnecessary.

The hon. Gentleman asked about cumulative effects. Camden Council has argued that the cumulative impacts have not been assessed, and it requested the consideration of habitability assessments to identify mitigation. HS2 Ltd does not accept the view that cumulative effects have not been assessed. The predicted significant amenity effects resulting from a combination of significant noise and vibration, HGV construction traffic, and visual and air quality effects are reported in the community chapter of the environmental statement. That is a standard approach in an environmental impact assessment, and we do not consider an additional bespoke habitability assessment to be required.

That is not to say that the concerns of residents near the works in Camden are not taken seriously. HS2 Ltd is continuing to discuss with the London Borough of Camden how mitigation provided on a topic-by-topic basis, including that outlined in the draft code of construction practice, will be implemented in practice. That includes a focus on the potential topics that might lead to a combination of cumulative amenity effects. Furthermore, a specific assurance has been provided to the London Borough of Camden, including a commitment to further consider a group of residential properties that is currently not identified as being likely to qualify for noise insulation.

The environmental study was undertaken in response to the exceptional nature of the construction works in Camden, given their duration and intensity. Following the completion of further surveys, where appropriate, the nominated undertaker will seek to agree appropriate remedial measures with the London Borough of Camden. As the environmental assessment has already reported the cumulative effects of High Speed 2 on communities and assurances have been given that address habitability issues, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the new clause.

[Andy McDonald]

The Minister and I simply disagree about the appropriate methodology and the need for the Bill to require a report on cumulative impacts. I hear what he has to say, but, given that he seems to support what I said in introducing the new clause, I would rather borrow his belt and braces and put the matter to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause and explanatory note speak for themselves. The HS2 works will lead to nearby residents feeling a multiplicity of effects that can be described as affecting the habitability of their homes. The overall effects of the construction cannot be isolated into individual impacts, but must be considered together.

On 30 November 2015, Camden Council secured several assurances, including two important ones that could mitigate the impact of construction on residential properties. The first is as follows:

“HS2 Ltd. will develop a package of noise and ventilation measures (to be agreed with the Council) to help protect the 1025 homes identified in HS2 Ltd.’s Environmental Statement that could be significantly affected by HS2 construction noise. The agreed measures should be installed before the noisy HS2 works start.”

The second is:

“HS2 Ltd. will appoint an independent assessor to survey a representative sample of a group of homes likely to be affected by HS2 construction noise”,

in addition to the previously mentioned 1,025 homes identified in the environmental statement. It continues:

“This additional group includes homes in Regent’s Park Estate, Ampthill Estate and the ‘Camden Cutting’ area. Where it can be demonstrated that a property is affected in a similar way to this sample group, an independent survey of the property will be commissioned to decide if measures to offset noise and provide ventilation are necessary.”

With regard to residential disturbance, the HS2 Select Committee stated in its final report:

“Camden is exceptional, and needs special treatment. Many residents are going to have to put up with disturbance on a scale beyond the experience in most other locations.”

The Select Committee gave directions for further mitigation, including that air quality monitoring should

“feed into an assessment of whether rehousing should occur in cases where air quality deteriorates.”

It said that

“an assessment of compliance with noise limits and a survey of health impacts”

should be carried out no more than six months after the start of the works, and that HS2 Ltd

“should reconsider rehousing based on the outcome of that survey.”

The Committee recommended that residents should be

“consulted on their preferences for how to moderate the impact of the construction programme”

and that HS2 Ltd should

“listen to what residents say about what might help, and respond with more than average diligence.”

The Committee stated:

“The choice of sound insulation and other mitigation measures should be in sympathy with construction and architecture”—

including Silsoe House on Park Village East—

“and take fair account of residents’ views on what is visually acceptable.”

The new clause would require that,

“If measures do not sufficiently mitigate the impacts on a property and the property therefore fails a habitability assessment, residents must be rehoused at the cost of HS2.”

The new clause would go some way towards reassuring residents of affected properties that their homes will be adapted to mitigate the severe cumulative impacts that we expect as a consequence of construction. I hope that the Minister will lend the new clause the Government’s support.

[Mr Goodwill]

We are committed to reducing the disruption to residents that will be caused by the construction of HS2, as far as is reasonably possible. In line with other major construction schemes such as Crossrail and the Thames tideway tunnel, a code of construction practice has been developed. The code sets out the controls that will be applied to mitigate the effects of the construction of HS2 and will be binding on the nominated undertaker. Those controls include the management of construction noise by applying the best practical means.

The code of construction practice identifies where offers of noise insulation or temporary rehousing should be made to residents to ensure that their health and quality of life are not significantly affected by the construction noise. The thresholds for noise insulation were designed with consideration of the relevant British standards relating to noise caused by construction. Any noise insulation measures to be installed in qualifying residential properties will be agreed with the building’s owner or occupier. We do not feel it is appropriate or necessary also to agree such measures with the local authority, unless it owns the building.

The control of construction noise and vibration, and the scope of the noise insulation and temporary rehousing policy, have been a major focus of negotiations between HS2 and the local authorities along the phase 1 route in recent months, particularly in the London Borough of Camden. The negotiations have resulted in additions to the temporary rehousing policy, including additional criteria for identifying cases where offers of temporary rehousing of residents may be necessary. HS2 Ltd has acknowledged the habitability concerns that have been raised by the London Borough of Camden due to the exceptional nature of the construction works in that borough.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald]

I am sure that the Minister has taken on board my comments. However, will he clarify something for me? We have talked continuously about mitigations, surveying, further mitigations and temporary rehousing. I hope that I am accounting for him correctly when I say that there is no mention anywhere of permanent rehousing where the noise levels and other disturbances have reached such a pitch of uninhabitability that that would be necessary. I am not sure that that point ever came across in his comments.

[Mr Goodwill]

Well, I can think of one fairly high-profile resident of Camden whose property has been purchased, not because it is needed for the construction of the railway but because the level of disruption in the area just in front of his particular house would be unacceptable. So there have been cases where we have purchased properties when the construction intensity would have made them uninhabitable in the long term. However, when there are peaks in construction or particularly noisy activities are taking place, there is the option to offer paid accommodation during that peak construction period, and if necessary we will use that power.

[Andy McDonald]

I am grateful to the Minister for that. I was not really thinking about the Mayor’s father; I was thinking about other people who live in that area. However, having secured those assurances from the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The point here is that the scheme comprehensively addresses loss of land, compulsory acquisitions, and loss of, and adverse impacts upon, businesses. It has a sophisticated methodology of compensation and rights of appeal to deal with those values. However, there is a glaring omission concerning those who are affected and severely affected by the works but neither own land nor have an affected business.

Not only businesses and property owners are potentially adversely affected. Many tenants, be they in social housing or private rented accommodation, have the potential to be severely affected by the works. It is beyond doubt that individuals, especially those who live close to the works, will suffer great disturbance, be that from the additional noise and heavy traffic, the vibration caused by piling or other construction activity and, importantly, the air pollution and the creation of dust in the atmosphere. That list is not meant to be exhaustive, and I am sure that hon. Members can think of innumerable ways in which individuals could be affected by the HS2 works.

There is provision for the payment of compensation under the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965, and the Bill makes additional, specific provision for compensation, principally in one of three ways. First, there is the express purchase scheme, under which owner-occupiers living closest to the line may be able to sell their home to the Government at its full, unblighted market value, plus 10%—up to £47,000—and reasonable moving expenses, including stamp duty. Then there is the voluntary purchase scheme, which enables owner-occupiers in rural areas who live outside the safeguarding area and up to 120 metres from the line to sell their home to the Government for its full unblighted value. They will be able to do that at any time up until a year after the line opens.

Finally, there is the need-to-sell scheme, under which owner-occupiers who have a compelling reason to sell their house but are unable to do so because of HS2 can sell to the Government for the full unblighted value. Applicants will not need to demonstrate that they would suffer hardship if they could not sell, but they will need to show that they have a compelling need such as job relocation or ill health. Once available, that scheme will replace the exceptional hardship scheme. In addition, the Government will immediately introduce a “rent back” option, whereby owner-occupiers who have sold their property to the Government but wish to continue living in it may be able to rent it back, subject to suitability checks.

I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that the Government intend to promote two further proposals for cash payments for affected owner-occupiers, the first of these being a cash payment of between £30,000 and £100,000 for owner-occupiers living outside the safeguarding area and up to 120 metres from the line in rural areas who do not want to sell their home and move. That payment would be an alternative to the voluntary purchase offer.

There will be a homeowner payment for owner-occupiers who live within 120 metres and 300 metres from the route in rural areas. The Government’s initial view is that payments could be between £7,500 and £22,500, depending on a property’s proximity to the route. There is nothing for a tenant in Euston, for example, who cannot move for one reason or another and is simply wedded to their community and cannot tolerate the thought of leaving. If they did, they would not have anywhere else to go. Nevertheless, they may be subjected to all manner of disturbance for many years.

We all recognise the great potential for that amount of disturbance and upset to cause significant physical and mental ill health. The “need to sell” scheme addresses the issue of ill health as an important issue when establishing a compelling need to sell. It is simply unfair that those individuals who suffer health consequences as a result of the works have no ability under the Bill to seek compensation.

Some property owners will not live in the communities affected but, because the value of their asset within the affected area is reduced, they will quite understandably receive compensation, yet an individual, perhaps born in the community and having lived there for decades, who is personally, directly and severely affected by the disturbance of the works, has no ability to receive compensation under the scheme. The new clause does not seek to prescribe what constitutes being severely affected, but leaves that to the Secretary of State to define. One would hope that, in his consultations on achieving such a definition, he would avail himself of expert medical opinion and come to a definition that would fairly address the obvious omission.

There is a very important principle at stake. It is clearly absolutely right that we value, respect and recognise individuals’ and companies’ property rights, and the adverse impact on the value of their property assets. Equally, it is important to value people and the damage caused to them by the loss of peaceable enjoyment of their homes, their peace of mind and physical health when such major works are undertaken, and accordingly any deficit, be it visited on a property owner or tenant, ought to be properly recognised. I therefore commend the new clause to the Committee.

[Mr Goodwill]

Landowners affected by the exercise of compulsory acquisition or by the construction or operation of the works will be compensated according to the compensation code. The code is a collective term for the principles deriving from Acts of Parliament. It is supplemented by case law relating to compensation for compulsory acquisition. The code is already applied by the Bill to the compulsory purchase of land required for HS2.

Depending on the particular circumstances in each case, compensation can be claimed for the unblighted market value of a property; severance and injurious affection, which is the depreciation in the value of land retained where only part of the claimant’s land holding is acquired; disturbance, representing the costs and losses incurred as a result of being disturbed from the occupation of the property; loss payments, which are an additional set payment depending on the nature of the interest being acquired, for example the home loss payment for a residential owner-occupier is 10% of the unblighted property value up to the maximum value of £47,000; fees, which include reasonable surveyors’ fees incurred in preparing and negotiating a compensation settlement together with solicitors’ fees for any conveyancing; loss in value due to physical factors such as noise, after trains start running; and diminution of value of the claimant’s interest in land caused by the works interfering with his or her private rights.

The compensation code forms part of the general law relating to compulsory purchase and it is entirely appropriate that it should apply to HS2. In addition to those statutory rights, the promoter has introduced a number of discretionary compensation schemes, in recognition of the specific impacts on property along the line of route. Those go significantly beyond what is set out in statute and address the points in the new clause relating to compensation for those who may be severely affected by the works.

The hon. Gentleman has outlined the compensation and purchase schemes, including the express purchase scheme and the voluntary purchase—he drew attention to the fact that there is an alternative cash offer of 10% of the unblighted market value of their property with a cap of £100,000 and a minimum payment of £30,000. He also outlined the “need to sell” scheme, which has been operating successfully in our view, particularly in the light of some of the suggestions being made by the Select Committee; and the homeowner payment scheme, which would provide cash payments to eligible owner-occupiers between 120 metres and 300 metres from the centre of the line. This would be made following Royal Assent of phase 1 of the hybrid Bill, enabling residents to share early in the future economic benefits of the railway and contributing to community cohesion.

With regard to tenants, it is important to remember that we would seek to mitigate effects where appropriate through such things as noise insulation. Where a tenant is significantly affected, they can complain to their landlord, with whom they have a contract, and it would be for the landlord to seek resolution. Tenants do not have the same restrictions on free movement that can afflict homeowners blighted by this type of project.

I hope that demonstrates that the Bill and our discretionary schemes have gone above and beyond what is required to ensure those negatively impacted by the construction and operation of the line have fair compensation. I hope the hon. Gentleman can withdraw his new clause.

[Andy McDonald]

The Minister has covered a great deal of the ground concerning property. Will he reflect on the assertion that tenants do not have restrictions on free movement? I am not entirely sure that I can agree with him on that point. Some people will be very wedded to their community and will feel unable to move for lots of reasons, including family or community ties. It is an obvious omission in my view that the potential damage to the peaceable enjoyment of tenants has not been addressed in any meaningful way whatever. It is not my intention to press the new clause to a vote. I simply ask that my comments and our discussion of it are further considered by the Minister as the Bill progresses. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 32

Replacement trees

(1) The Nominated Undertaker shall secure suitable replacement trees to replace the same number of lost trees during design and construction.

(2) The Nominated Undertaker is required to maintain a record of the number of the lost trees and of those replacement trees planted by the Nominated Undertaker.—(Andy McDonald.)

This new clause shall ensure that there is no net loss of trees as a result of the design and construction of HS2.

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald]

For the simple reason that although there may be that commitment, we may find that there is a removal or destruction of trees that is very detrimental, and that we have a net loss of trees over a significant period of time. I note the ambition and the intention to restore forests and altogether about 2 million trees, but it is what happens in the interim that might be of interest to the right hon. Gentleman. I trust that I shall address his point as I conclude my brief comments.

Trees brighten the streets and public spaces of urban areas throughout the country. It is a necessary evil that some of them will be cut down as part of the design and construction of HS2. It is a great shame that trees such as the Cubbington pear tree near Warwick will be lost. It was the 2015 Tree of the Year and is believed to have been growing for more than 250 years, but it will be cut down to make way for the line. It is necessary to lose some trees to facilitate phase 1 of HS2, but it is important that we do not suffer a net loss of trees because of the construction.

The Minister is committed to ensuring that the biodiversity of our country is maintained; ensuring that we do not lose trees is an important component of maintaining that biodiversity. The new clause would require the nominated undertaker to secure suitable replacement trees to replace the same number of lost trees during design and construction. It would also require the nominated undertaker to maintain a record of the trees planted in place of those lost.

I understand that some 2 million trees will be planted as part of the mitigation in connection with phase 1. That in itself is a fantastic achievement, but will the Minister assure the Committee that we will not suffer a net loss of trees? Earlier in Committee he mentioned a recent meeting with the Woodland Trust to look into how best to choose the species of tree to introduce in the planting programme. Can he reassure local authorities, environmental groups and community groups that trees will be suitably replaced?

[Mr Goodwill]

I am more than happy to give the hon. Gentleman the assurances he seeks. Indeed, we will be not only replacing the trees but planting many more times the number removed. The planting of 2 million trees should have a major positive effect on the environment and contribute to our pledge of no net environmental loss from the delivery of HS2. The code of construction practice means that the nominated undertaker will be required to set out the number of lost trees and the replacement and monitoring plans that will be developed going forward. Indeed, wherever possible we will try to source trees from the United Kingdom, if for no other reason than phytosanitary purposes.

Section 12 of the code of construction practice that accompanied the Bill states:

“Appropriate controls will be put in place to protect the landscape and visual receptors in rural and urban areas from construction activities including designated landscape areas, heritage assets, parks and, open spaces and smaller green spaces in urban areas. Controls will include, as appropriate…a plan showing areas of existing trees and vegetation within the construction site to be retained (and protected), and those to be removed…a schedule of plant species and planting mixes to be used and provision of sufficient stock of specified species and provenance that typify the local area, including details of plant suppliers to be used…a programme for undertaking planting works…inspection, maintenance and management of existing and new planting”.

The Cubbington pear tree was indeed Tree of the Year 2015. It is true that unfortunately the tree will be a casualty of the delivery of the scheme, although I am told by the experts who have looked at the tree that it is very old and is probably getting to the end of its natural life. I have ensured that we take as many cuttings as possible, and take any other possible measures to try to propagate this tree and ensure that a number of communities up and down the line of route will be able to have one of the daughters of the Cubbington pear tree as part of their community. We are doing whatever we can to try to ensure that while, sadly, this tree may fall to the chainsaws of the HS2 construction teams, there will be life after death for the genetic material ensconced in the pear tree.

In addition, section 12 states that the nominated undertaker will require its contractors to employ an arboricultural consultant to oversee work relating to the protection of trees. Trees intended to be retained that are accidentally felled or die as a consequence of construction works will be replaced where reasonably practicable. The size and species of replacement trees will be selected to achieve a close resemblance to the original trees, in line with the HS2 landscape design approach document, taking cognisance of any management plans for immediately adjacent areas of woodland. The code of construction practices is binding under the environmental minimum requirements, and therefore the Secretary of State would be accountable to Parliament should there be a breach.

As part of the development of the scheme and the Select Committee process, we have provided the London Borough of Camden with assurances on trees, the wording of which is identical to that put forward by the hon. Gentleman in this proposed new clause. As with all assurances, the Secretary of State is accountable to Parliament should this not be delivered. With this in mind, I do not believe that there is a need to include the new clause within the Bill. It would duplicate existing obligations for which we are already accountable to Parliament. I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw this proposed new clause.

[Andy McDonald]

I am delighted to hear that there will be life after death for the Cubbington pear. The Minister has persuaded me that trees will be replanted in very significant numbers. I agree entirely with him that the new clause is now not necessary, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 33

Engagement on permanent replacement of open space: London Borough of Camden

The Secretary of State shall require the Nominated Undertaker to actively engage with the London Borough of Camden to ensure the provision of high quality permanent replacement open space and play space within the design for the authorised works in the London Borough of Camden in so far as is reasonably practicable within the limits of the Bill and without impacting the timely and economic delivery of the railway.—(Andy McDonald.)

This amendment would require the Nominated Undertaker to engage meaningfully with the London Borough of Camden to ensure the provision of high quality permanent replacement open space and play areas.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Andy McDonald]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The clause deals with engagement on the permanent replacement of open space, again in the London Borough of Camden. It obliges the Secretary of State to require the nominated undertaker to actively engage with the London Borough of Camden to ensure the provision of high quality permanent replacement open space and play space within the design for the authorised works in the London Borough of Camden, in so far as is reasonably practicable within the limits of the Bill and without impacting the timely and economic delivery of the railway. The object is to ensure that there is indeed meaningful engagement between the nominated undertaker and Camden, in order to secure the provision of high quality, permanent replacement open space and play areas.

High Speed 2 will see the permanent loss of some valued and historic open spaces in Camden, including St. James’s gardens which are on the site of an historic burial ground. Over 10,000 square metres of green open space with mature trees will be lost forever. In total, 20,000 square metres of open space will be lost in Camden. Open space is a valuable amenity in the urban environment: a place to sit and relax, play and exercise, and a green lung to counteract pollution. In its assurances to Camden Council, HS2 has agreed to provide high quality, permanent replacement open space and play areas of equal quantity to those which are lost in construction in the London Borough of Camden. That includes specific proposals to provide permanent replacement open space which will be subject to resident consultation. HS2 Ltd will replace all the trees lost to the scheme, and replace the open space lost temporarily during construction.

HS2 will fund improvements to various existing open spaces, which can be subject to resident consultation and agreed between the Secretary of State and Camden Council. Given that open space can range from green parks to concrete squares, consultation is especially important. There will be unanimity across the Committee as to the importance of open space and play areas in any and all of our communities. No doubt hon. Members have been petitioned in their constituencies about such matters, and will fully appreciate the strength of local feeling about such key issues of green lungs in our communities and open spaces to give blessed relief from dense development. That is even more critical in the magnificent metropolis of our country’s capital city. Our wonderful parks and open spaces characterise and enrich the quality of life in London and distinguish it from other major world cities, which are all too often wall-to-wall urban sprawl with no relief or counterpoint.

In Camden in particular the loss of open space is dramatic, not only due to the impact of the whole development but the sheer scale of the areas lost. The community of Camden is sacrificing a great deal for HS2 and the greater good of our country. It is right and fair that every effort be made to reassure that community, which has undoubtedly felt somewhat beleaguered since the development is happening whether it likes it or not.

At the very least, the new clause would enable the community to have a voice in ensuring that the permanent replacements of open spaces lost through the works are of the highest quality. Camden would have a significant say in the nature of the replacement open spaces it needs for the community benefit and civic restoration after HS2 construction. We do not want only the pear tree to have life after construction; we also want Camden to have that.

My new clause is fully cognisant of the practical limits of what can be done. We shamelessly borrow the language of the HS2 assurances in acknowledging what is reasonably practicable. We make the explicit acknowledgment that, whatever steps are taken, it cannot impact in any way on the timely and economic delivery of the railway. The new clause accords with the stated aims and objectives to secure a total development of the highest quality. The quality of open spaces is a key component of that objective.

Equally important is taking the community along with the project, giving it a real sense of ownership. This measure will contribute to enabling the Camden community to feel that HS2 is not something that is being done to the community but something that the community is an integral part of.

For all those reasons, I trust the Minister will demonstrate to Camden that its concerns about the need for high-quality open spaces have been fully recognised, by embracing this new clause, which I trust finds favour with him and his colleagues.

[Mr Goodwill]

The hon. Gentleman talked about the importance of green lungs to our cities. I agree that many of our cities benefit from their open spaces and parkland. Coming as he does from a city where they are called smoggies by their footballing friends from Newcastle and Sunderland, he is well placed to understand the importance of clean air and green spaces.

[Andy McDonald]

I cannot let that go. Smoggies is a term of endearment and harks back to heavy industrialisation when the air was impure. It is now extremely clean and beautiful. People are often surprised at how green and pleasant the area is in and around my constituency. I would welcome the Minister’s visit to test that theory; he will not find any significant pollution whatsoever.

[Mr Goodwill]

Having been the parliamentary candidate for the Redcar constituency in 1992, I can attest to the wonderful environment. When I am next in Middlesbrough, either to watch their football team or to avail myself of a cheese parmo, I will make sure that I breathe in the clean air, which is much improved on the industrial days when the steel and chemical industries were spewing out.

[Andy McDonald]

I warn the Minister: the air is okay, but I would really caution him against the parmos. They are a heart attack on a plate. If he wants to keep healthy, he should avoid them like the plague.

[Mr Goodwill]

I will not digress on the culinary delights of the Middlesbrough area. We recognise that HS2 works will remove or impact on some of the existing open space in the area around the proposed station at Euston. HS2 Ltd will take steps to create a range of new or improved open spaces appropriate to the needs of potential users, the location and local character. I include civic spaces and public realm, play space and local green spaces. In view of this, an assurance has been agreed with the London Borough of Camden that the promoter will require the nominated undertaker to engage actively with Camden to ensure the provision of high-quality permanent replacement open space and play space within the design for the authorised works, in so far as reasonably practicable within the limits of the Bill and without impacting the timely and economic delivery of the railway.

Commitments given by the promoter during the passage of the Bill are included on the register of undertakings and assurances held by the Department for Transport and finalised at Royal Assent. All commitments, including the register, will be binding on the nominated undertaker and the Secretary of State as the project is taken forward. Sufficient mechanisms are therefore in place to deliver the intent of new clause 33. Throughout the Bill, we have sought not to legislate where there are existing processes, except where it is necessary for the expeditious delivery of phase 1 of HS2. I hope this clarification reassures the hon. Gentleman that he can withdraw new clause 33.

[Andy McDonald]

I have listened intently to the Minister and he has demonstrated throughout every element of the new clause that provision is in place and those concerns have been properly recognised. I note that the methodology currently exists to ensure that the undertakings and assurances are fully implemented. For those reasons, notwithstanding my earlier indication that I would press the matter to a vote, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 34

Support for local business

(1) The Nominated Undertaker must take all reasonable steps to safeguard the interest of local businesses negatively affected by the construction and operation of the High Speed Rail (London-West Midlands) line.

(2) Such mitigation shall include, but not be limited to—

(a) providing support for marketing and promotion to maintain footfall,

(b) property modifications and shop front improvements,

(c) use of properties which become vacant for business meanwhile uses, and

(d) facilitating relocation of businesses should this become required as a direct result of the scheme.—(Andy McDonald.)

This new clause requires the Nominated Undertaker to mitigate the impacts of the HS2 works and scheme on local businesses. Measures shall include promotion activity to maintain footfall, property and shop front modifications, and facilitating relocation of businesses if this becomes necessary as a result of the scheme.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Andy McDonald]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Euston is a strategically important business destination with an annual gross value added of some £3.37 billion. There are many small businesses in the area, some of which characterise Camden very well. I am thinking particularly of those in the Drummond Street area, where there is a range of restaurants, many of which are south-east Asian. I think the Minister mentioned that he had had lunch there recently. I am sure it was a very good restaurant and I must go.

Other properties, for example in the Langtry Walk area, will be impacted by a construction yard for the ventilation shafts, as I understand it. Those businesses will be extraordinarily vulnerable to the impact of construction. Some 145 businesses are located in the safeguarding area, including 73 which will be demolished. More than 300 businesses are located in close proximity to major construction works. It follows that some 2,915 jobs are at risk of loss or displacement. In its business mitigation assurances to Camden Council, HS2 Ltd agreed to develop a business support strategy in consultation with Camden Council that will consider engagement with and support for businesses affected by HS2 before and during construction, including how to promote and market those businesses. HS2 also agreed for an agency to be set up at least one year before the main HS2 construction works begin, to assist businesses that need to move due to the works. The agency would help those businesses to identify suitable alternative premises. Within the assurances secured there is a specific commitment to provide a community environment fund and a business and local economy fund to support projects in Camden of different sizes—some are for the larger ones and some for the smaller.

I re-emphasise what the HS2 Select Committee has said—that the £34,800 rateable value cap for “need to sell” business applications was not appropriate in the case of London businesses, given that too many would exceed that cap. They have asked the Government for a re-evaluation, such that the proportion of London businesses falling below the cap is broadly the same as elsewhere. That would appear eminently reasonable in order to bring some equity to bear.

This is a much-needed new clause, to try to secure additional assurances and comment from the Minister that the very real and legitimate concerns of these businesses will be adequately addressed.

[Mr Goodwill]

The Government are committed to ensuring that we minimise the impact on local businesses as we construct HS2, but the new clause will not help to further that commitment. The environmental statement that accompanied the Bill already commits to mitigating the construction impacts of the scheme on businesses. Through the Select Committee process that we have just completed, we have provided a great number of businesses with specific binding assurances to address the impacts that they may experience. I have visited some of the businesses myself to see first hand the problems they face. We have committed to engaging with local communities during the construction phase and managing any concerns they have. We fully expect that that may include the provision of good-quality public realm amenities during construction, such as temporary planting, colourful hoardings—which may, for example, give information about the operation of nearby businesses—and so on. We are considering what we can do in terms of signposting and information on businesses that are operating within the area to minimise impacts in terms of isolation and amenity.

As the hon. Gentleman said, I visited a Drummond Street restaurant with Mr Frank Dobson, a former Member of Parliament, and can very much understand some of the problems the businesses anticipate when construction has severed the area and made it difficult for customers to get through. It is important that we do whatever we can to ensure that they continue to thrive. I hope construction workers themselves bring patronage to those types of businesses.

We have also launched a business and local economy fund to add benefit over and above committed mitigation and statutory compensation to support local economies that are demonstrably disrupted by the construction of HS2. The fund may well support measures such as improvements to the local public realm, especially in retail and tourist areas, events that increase footfall or promote business activity during seasonal periods and general promotional activity.

The hon. Gentleman raised the £34,000 business rate cap for “need to sell” business applications. Members of the Select Committee raised that with me, and the Government are looking at it. Business rates in London are far greater than those in other parts of the country, and if we can, we will certainly do something to try to address that problem for the small number of businesses that fall outside that particular net.

Applications will be invited for capital or revenue grants from £10,000 up to a maximum of £1 million. It will be for local businesses and support organisations, including local authorities, to identify appropriate projects that will help to maintain business activity in local communities.

I believe, therefore, that all the points made by the hon. Gentleman have been addressed and that the new clause can be withdrawn.

[Andy McDonald]

I am grateful to the Minister. I have heard what he has to say and, given all the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 35

HS2 Construction Skills Centre: Establishment

(1) An HS2 construction skills centre shall be established in Euston.

(2) The role of the construction skills centre shall include, but not be limited to—

(a) the provision of advice and information on finding work in the construction industry local to Euston,

(b) the provision of training and apprenticeships relevant to the HS2 project for people who are out of work or carrying out unskilled work.

(3) The construction skills centre shall be operational for no less than 10 years following its opening.—(Andy McDonald.)

This new clause requires the establishment of an HS2 construction skills centre in Euston to provide advice and information about finding work in construction in the Euston area, and the provision of training and apprenticeships relating to the HS2 scheme.

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

I think we are probably all on the same page in recognising the importance of skills in delivering the project and, indeed, in delivering many other projects that have been rolled forward. The work at Newcastle central station was mentioned. We are also investing substantially in the A1, not only in North Yorkshire by improving the capacity there, but on the western relief road, where long-overdue work is taking place. We have demonstrated that we are investing not just between Birmingham and London with high-speed rail, but around the country with our rail and road infrastructure.

Skills are vital to ensuring that our long-term economic plan—this is the first time I have mentioned it—can be delivered. Indeed, I am delighted that the HS2 college will be established in Birmingham with a satellite college in Doncaster, which is, of course, the birthplace of the famous Flying Scotsman and Mallard. Doncaster’s great railway heritage will be built on by the skills college, which I hope to visit very soon. Incidentally, I would like to visit the college in Gateshead if the hon. Member for Blaydon would send me a note. I would be delighted to visit as my son is in Newcastle at the moment so it would be a good opportunity to kill two birds with one stone.

The design, planning and construction of HS2 will create a significant number of employment opportunities. It is expected to create 24,600 new construction jobs, many of which will be in the Camden area. Suitably skilled individuals will stand to benefit from the employment opportunities that HS2 generated. The promoter recognises the role that the Kings Cross skills centre has played in the London Borough of Camden and sees the potential to build on that model to deliver HS2’s skills and employment objectives.

To that end, an assurance has been agreed with the London Borough of Camden, requiring the promoter

“to actively engage with the London Borough of Camden regarding the development of a Euston construction skills centre…The objectives…should include, but not be limited to: the provision of advice and information on finding work in the construction industry local to Euston, and the provision of training and apprenticeships relevant to the HS2 project for people who are out of work or carrying out unskilled work.”

The assurance also states:

“On the 9th year following the opening of the construction skills centre (or earlier by agreement) the Secretary of State will consider further funding for the ongoing provision of this facility. In consideration of further funding the Secretary of State will review…Whether the objectives of the skills centre have been met…Whether performance targets have been met… Recommendations from the Euston Station Strategic Redevelopment Board (or equivalent)…Additional funding sources including other developers operating in the Euston Area”.

Commitments given by the promoter during the passage of the Bill are included in the register of undertakings and assurances, which is held by the Department for Transport and finalised at Royal Assent. All commitments included on the register will be binding on the nominated undertaker and the Secretary of State as the project is taken forward. Sufficient mechanisms are therefore in place to deliver the intent of the new clause. Throughout the Bill, we have sought not to legislate where there are existing processes, except where it is necessary for the expeditious delivery of phase 1 of HS2. I hope that that clarification will reassure Opposition Members, and that the new clause can therefore be withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I am not convinced that this can be dealt with by way of the assurances about which we have heard so much thus far. The new clause deals with the impact of construction traffic. The underlying rationale is for the nominated undertaker and its contractors to take all reasonable and practical steps to mitigate the impact of construction traffic on local communities. To some extent, new clause 36 touches upon some of the ground that we covered in our debate on new clause 26, where we discussed maximising the use of rail to bring and remove excavation and construction material. The new clause places an obligation on the nominated undertaker to ensure that the impacts of construction traffic on local communities are mitigated, again, as per our earlier discussion, with the caveat of that being reasonably practicable. Again, this is an acknowledgment that the provision will not in any way adversely affect the necessary works.

What we are not referring to is the excavation of spoil by tunnelling. The Minister is right that all of that will be removed by rail, and will not result in any extra lorries on the road at Euston. Rather, we are concerned about the excavation, demolition and construction materials needed to build the HS2 station at Euston. Even with the Minister’s clarification, it is planned that much of the material will be moved by road and not rail at Euston.

HS2’s own figures—contained in additional provision 3, community forum area 1 report for Euston, table 7 —estimate that more than 3 million tonnes of material will be created at Euston. That includes 2,474,296 tonnes—the figures are very precise—to be generated by excavation, while 328,135 tonnes will be generated by demolition and 642,498 tonnes by the construction process. That amount will have a huge impact on the roads, however it is removed. The same document containing HS2’s own figures sets out that that equates to

“peak lorry movements of 800 combined two-way vehicle movements per day”,

which is 1,600 lorry movements per day in the busiest month, which is understood to be in 2023. The majority—90%—of those lorries will be HGVs. Camden residents are concerned about the impacts on air quality, the safety of pedestrians and cyclists, habitability and traffic congestion that the lorries may cause and, indeed, are likely to cause.

HS2 Ltd has given assurances to Camden Council that it will engage actively with the council, the Greater London Authority and Transport for London to develop a plan for the bringing in and removal of such excavated materials and construction materials to and from Euston by rail. The plan should be submitted to the Euston integrated programme board and the Euston station strategic redevelopment board for comment by no later than May 2016.

With the new clause, we are seeking to secure an additional commitment which goes further than just producing a plan, and actually puts in place the mechanisms to achieve the removal and delivery of the maximum proportion of excavated and construction materials by rail. I trust that the Minister can accept the rationale of the clause, as we are dealing with an area that the Select Committee has made clear is worthy of special attention. The new clause would make it abundantly clear to the people of Camden that their concerns have been rightly acknowledged and will be addressed, as embedded in the Bill, rather than awaiting developments in the months ahead.

[Mr Goodwill]

The construction of HS2 will inevitably require the use of construction lorries on the public highway. As we discussed previously, a big proportion of the excavated material in the urban area at the London end of the line will be transported either by rail or along the line of route. The opportunity to procure the corridor for the railway will enable the movement of excavated material along line of route, not just for disposal but for possible use elsewhere along the line to build up ground.

We are aware that that is a concern for communities near the works and we take that very seriously. HS2 Ltd has therefore put in place a range of controls in the Bill and in commitments that address the issue raised in the new clause. First, under schedule 17 to the Bill, lorry routes to and from all work sites with more than 12 two- way lorry movements will require the approval of the relevant planning authority. Through that process, the nominated undertaker will consider the best routes to use taking account of the effects on local amenity. While determining such applications, the planning authority will be able to consult local communities.

In addition, commitments have been made with regard to traffic management in the code of construction practice and the route-wide traffic management plan. The requirements in those documents are made binding through commitments to Parliament. The nominated undertaker will have regular liaison with bodies interested in highways safety, such as vehicle operators, the Health and Safety Executive, the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency and the emergency services.

The nominated undertaker will be required to ensure driver training with regard to vulnerable road users and vehicles’ safety equipment. Contractors will also be required to sign up to fleet management standards, such as the fleet operator recognition scheme, which was developed by Transport for London.

In addition to those measures, which will be applied at a route-wide level, there will also be local traffic management plans, which will be prepared in consultation with the local highway authority. That will cover a range of issues relating to traffic management matters, lorry movements and highway work. There will also be continuing engagement throughout the duration of the HS2 works through traffic liaison groups that will be set up along the route.

Membership of those will include highway authorities, public transport operators and the emergency services. That is just a summary of the wide range of controls that will be put in place to manage the impacts of construction traffic on communities. I hope that the binding controls I have described have demonstrated that the matters that the proposed new clause aims to address are already more than adequately controlled in the Bill and allied commitments. I hope that that clarification reassures the hon. Gentleman and that he will not press his new clause.

[Andy McDonald]

I am grateful to the Minister for his attention to detail. He clearly shares our concerns but I am disappointed that he has not recognised how the issue is perceived in the community. This is such an important matter to the Camden community. It is essential that it is loud and clear in the fabric of the Bill, so there can be no doubt or degree of interpretation in the months and years ahead. For that reason, I want to press the new clause to the vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The construction works will undoubtedly cause significant disruption to pedestrian and access routes in the areas affected by the workings. The new clause addresses that issue and secures the retention of safe routes for pedestrians and cyclists alike. In the assurance given by HS2 to Camden, regard was given to construction routes used by pedestrians and cyclists: the Secretary of State will require the nominated undertaker, where reasonably practicable, to retain access for pedestrians and cyclists where safe and appropriate to do so, including where a highway is closed to other traffic under the powers of the Bill. Before any formal application under the Bill relating to traffic or highways proposals, site-specific measures will be discussed with highway authorities and emergency services through the traffic liaison group meeting established in accordance with the construction practice and route-wide traffic management plan.

Examples of the measures are given, including details about specific traffic management measures; installation of appropriate signage, indicating all temporary diversion or, where reasonably appropriate, alternative routes; and measures to minimise impact on high users. By obliging the nominated undertaker to retain access in this way, where reasonably practicable, we seek to give statutory teeth to the assurances about the implementation of construction best practice, to guarantee that every effort will be made to keep access flows open for pedestrians and cyclists. This is a straightforward new clause that I hope will require no further expansion or explanation. I am sure the Minister will wish to endorse and support new clause 37.

[Mr Goodwill]

Of course I support the aims of this new clause, but my support falls just short of wishing to put it in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman has found a friend in me if he is looking to protect the interests of cyclists in London. As the Minister for cycling and walking, I am a cyclist myself and have made two cycle journeys in London today. The hon. Gentleman is right that where construction is going on it can cause disruption and become a problem for cyclists and pedestrians. We always talk about the dangers of cycling in London, but per kilometre travelled the danger of being a pedestrian is similar to that for cyclists. Although neither cycling nor walking is a dangerous occupation in London, when there is an unfortunate accident it receives a lot of prominence in the press. It is our intention that the works should not affect unduly the ability of pedestrians, cyclists and other vulnerable road users to use the highway network. There are two main aspects to this: how HS2 construction vehicles use the highway and how HS2 temporarily occupies the highway during works. For both those matters, I assure the hon. Member for Middlesbrough that the new clause is unnecessary, as there are already suitable controls in place.

As outlined in my response to new clause 36, an array of controls on HS2 construction traffic will be in place to manage traffic levels and protect pedestrians and cyclists. As well as those measures, there are controls and commitments to address how works in the highway will be carried out in a way that reduces disruption and ensures safety. Local traffic liaison groups are central to that. As temporary traffic management schemes such as changes to pedestrian and cycle routes are developed there will be consultation with interested parties, as reasonably required by the traffic liaison group meetings.

--- Later in debate ---

On resuming—

[Mr Goodwill]

The meetings of traffic liaison groups will provide an opportunity to consider the feasibility of maintaining pedestrian and cycle access on routes closed to other traffic. Final temporary traffic management plans will be submitted by the contractor to the nominated undertaker’s qualified area traffic manager to ensure that they comply with the engagement feedback and published standards for temporary traffic management.

The traffic management plan will then be subject to review at the traffic liaison group meeting prior to submission for formal consultation and, as necessary, approval in accordance with schedule 4 to the Bill. Prior to implementation, further notification, such as advanced warning signage, will be provided. During the works, the nominated undertaker will provide staff to ensure compliance with traffic management arrangements.

The measures I have set out demonstrate that the intention of the new clause is addressed by requirements that are already in place. The controls set out have been demonstrated to be effective on projects such as the Olympics and Crossrail. The points made by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough have been addressed and I hope that the proposed new clause will be withdrawn.

[Andy McDonald]

I am grateful to the Minister. He has succeeded in persuading me that there will be adequate provision to obtain safe pedestrian and cyclist access on the routes affected by the construction. I trust that he will turn his attention successfully to some of the dangers posed by cyclists and pedestrians using zebra crossings outside the building. With that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 38

Compliance with standards

(1) The Secretary of State shall require the Nominated Undertaker and its contractors to report on their compliance with agreed air quality and pollution standards for the project, any Code of Construction Practice in place, Traffic Management Plans, and other guidance and standards agreed.

(2) The Secretary of State shall lay a summary of this report before both Houses of Parliament on an annual basis from the year after Royal Assent until the conclusion of the construction period.—(Andy McDonald.)

This new clause requires the Nominated Undertaker to comply with agreed air quality and pollution standards, codes of construction practice, traffic management plans and other standards and guidance agreed. Compliance must be recorded by way of an annual report to Parliament.

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

We seem to be having a Camden-centric afternoon, and the safeguards and protections will apply along the line of route—it is not just in central London where we need to be aware of traffic congestion and air quality problems. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that air quality is a real issue in certain hotspots in London. Indeed, he has just said that some cyclists and pedestrians wear face masks. Car drivers should be aware that they are not immune to that air just because they are sitting in their car. Car air intakes, which pump warmed air into the cabin, are at a height likelier to have high levels of pollution than for a cyclist or pedestrian, who travel at a position slightly higher than some exhausts.

Managing the environmental effects of its construction and operation has been at the centre of the development of HS2 and the discussions with petitioners, and has resulted in many commitments being given on the environment. Those commitments are contained in the environmental minimum requirements, which are enforced in a number of ways. First, the contractual obligation on the nominated undertaker to comply with the environmental minimum requirements will provide a mechanism for the Secretary of State to ensure that the requirements are complied with. Furthermore, the environmental minimum requirements require that the nominated undertaker and their contractors have environmental management systems, a set of processes and procedures for which international standards exist, that ensure the nominated undertaker and their supply chain meet the requirements that have been set.

Should there be an issue with compliance, however, mechanisms exist for concerned parties to seek resolution to the problem. Assurances, including those relating to the environmental minimum requirements, will be enforceable against any person appointed as a nominated undertaker through the Secretary of State’s undertakings, which means that, in the event of failure to comply with an assurance, recourse will be through the Secretary of State, who is answerable to Parliament for securing compliance. If it is felt that a contractor undertaking works authorised by the Bill is not meeting the environmental minimum requirements, steps can be taken to ensure that there is an investigation and that any corrective action needed is taken. A clear legal process exists to ensure compliance with the environmental minimum requirements and other environmental commitments, and it has been shown to work for other projects such as Crossrail. As a result, there is no need for the proposed new clause.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned HGVs, and it is encouraging that compliance on NO_x pollution from HGVs is of the order of 90% because, as he said, they can be fitted with selective catalytic reduction systems or exhaust gas recirculation, which reduces pollution levels. As we have seen in recent reports from the United States, some passenger cars do not meet that level of compliance. Of course, central London, where Euston lies, is within a low-emission zone. HGVs that do not meet the most stringent requirements are not allowed to be there, so he can be assured that vehicles used in the construction of the project will be state of the art. I therefore believe that his concerns have been addressed, and I hope that the new clause will be withdrawn.

[Andy McDonald]

The Minister focuses on the Camden-centric nature of many of our proposed new clauses. I simply point out that Camden is one of the hotspots, and it has particular pollution issues that need to be addressed. I would not want to apologise too much for seeking to have those issues thoroughly investigated. As with other clauses, our preference is for these issues to be included in the Bill, rather than simply relying on the assurance and other schemes. An annual report should be laid before the House, but I recognise that he and his colleagues will not be persuaded, so I will not trouble the Committee by pressing the new clause to a vote.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 39

Report on the application of compensation schemes

(1) The Secretary of State shall appoint an independent body to report annually on the application of compensation schemes for the works to be carried out under this Act.

(2) The report shall include, but not be limited to—

(a) information on the take up of the various schemes available,

(b) an assessment of the comparative take up of the schemes available in urban and rural areas,

(c) the judgement of the independent body of the effectiveness of the application of compensation schemes, and

(d) the judgement of the independent body of the application of the compensation schemes available in rural and urban areas.

(3) The Secretary of State shall lay this report before both Houses of Parliament.—(Andy McDonald.)

This new clause would require an annual independent assessment of the compensation schemes which apply to the HS2 scheme, including an assessment of the application of the compensation schemes available in rural and urban areas and any consequences, including suggested remedies, resulting from this.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Andy McDonald]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. As the Minister will be aware, issues surrounding compensation schemes have been, and no doubt will continue to be, points of contention for those who will be adversely impacted by the construction of HS2. There will be significant disruption in urban areas. Approximately 250 homes in Camden and 200 in Ealing could be made uninhabitable during and after the construction phase and open space and community facilities will be lost to Camden, Ealing and Hillingdon. Residents and businesses in urban areas have argued that it is wrong that they will receive less compensation than those in rural areas, despite the urban areas suffering more disruption; just three out of five compensation measures apply only to rural areas, with only the express purchase scheme and need to sell scheme available in urban areas.

The HS2 Select Committee has said that the £34,800 rateable value cap for need-to-sell business applications was not appropriate in the case of London businesses, given that too many would exceed the cap. It has asked for a Government re-evaluation, such that the proportion of London businesses falling beneath the cap is broadly the same as elsewhere. The Minister may be open to looking at that. One might also argue that the need to sell scheme’s requirement to demonstrate a 15% loss in property value, or the express purchase scheme’s £49,000 cap for a 10% addition to the market value of a property, are unsuitable for urban areas, given that the average price for a property in some of the boroughs most affected in London is £650,000. The Select Committee also noted that beyond need to sell, there is still little recognition of the effects on others who are blighted, including tenants and licensed occupiers, with many of the affected residents in Camden being council tenants. An annual independent assessment of the compensation schemes that apply to the HS2 scheme, including an assessment of the equivalence of the compensation schemes available in rural and urban areas, and any consequences, is therefore necessary.

The issues surrounding compensation are hotly contested and are causing a degree of animus among some of those affected, so the establishment of an independent body to report annually on the application of compensation schemes for the works to be carried out under this Bill would help to ensure that compensation schemes were both fair and effective.

[Mr Goodwill]

Although we have different compensation schemes in place for urban and rural areas, the need to sell scheme has no geographical limit. However, it is unlikely that the impact of the project away from the line of the route will be felt as much in urban areas as in rural areas, as they are built-up areas with a lot of traffic and existing railway stations, certainly in the case of Euston. The property schemes in place for HS2 are way above those for other infrastructure, or indeed compulsory purchase schemes for other projects.

I fully endorse the need for the Government to be transparent with respect to the application of our property compensation schemes. We are already reporting on the performance of our key discretionary property scheme, the need to sell scheme. We are reporting on the number of applications we receive, the outcome of those applications and the overall amounts spent on compensation under the scheme. Rather than doing so annually, as the new clause suggests, we have been reporting on a monthly basis. The reports are publicly available.

I also recognise the benefit of appointing a body to scrutinise our performance in relation to property compensation. For that reason, we have already appointed a residents’ commissioner to monitor how we communicate with the public with respect to our compensation scheme and to monitor and report against our general performance in relation to the operation of all the various discretionary compensation schemes. I have met the residents’ commissioner and intend to meet her regularly. I have also made it clear to her that if any problems emerge, she should consider my door always open to her to raise them with me directly. The residents’ commissioner produces a report broadly quarterly, and the chairman of HS2 Ltd is obliged to provide a response to the issues raised in each report. The reports and responses are also publicly available. I therefore believe that all the points made by the hon. Gentleman have been addressed, and I hope that he will withdraw the proposed new clause.

[Andy McDonald]

I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said, and I accept entirely his assurances that the issues that we sought to address in the new clause have been recognised and will continue to be addressed. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 40

Exclusion of a Heathrow Spur

(1) For the avoidance of doubt, no provision of this Act shall be interpreted as authorising the development of a spur from the railway to Heathrow airport.

(2) Within one month of the day on which this Act receives Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must communicate to the relevant landowners and communities that the construction of a Heathrow Spur is not authorised by this Act.—(Andy McDonald.)

This new clause would make clear that a Heathrow Spur is not authorised by this Act and require the Secretary of State to communicate this to relevant landowners and communities.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Andy McDonald]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

We turn our gaze away from central London and look as far west as Heathrow. The new clause seeks to exclude specifically the possibility of a Heathrow spur, in order to avoid doubt and potential blight. Thus far, the Heathrow spur remains a possibility. The new clause follows on from a recommendation made in the Select Committee report on high-speed rail. Proposals had been considered for several years for the construction of a spur connecting the HS2 route to Heathrow airport, but they were eventually ruled out by the Secretary of State in March 2015, in answer to a written question.

The Airports Commission said of the proposed spur from Old Oak Common that it would have been

“likely to attract only a small number of passengers, carry a high capital cost and represent an inefficient use of HS2 capacity.”

The commission made it clear that an HS2 spur, which would have cost more than £1.4 billion, was

“highly unlikely to be necessary to support any expansion of Heathrow airport”.

I make no comment in this context as to whether that is desirable or otherwise, but it nevertheless boxes off the issue.

The Bill contains provisions that could be used to provide passive provision for a future spur from the railway to Heathrow. The Secretary of State has confirmed that a spur will not be built as part of HS2 phase 1 or 2, but it is the Select Committee’s view that there remains a risk of blight on properties on the trajectory of the previously envisaged spur. The concern is that the threat of a Heathrow spur link does not go away. The new clause would make that threat go away. The Select Committee directed the Secretary of State

“not to use the Bill powers to implement passive provision for a Heathrow spur.”

The Committee also said,

“To avoid confusion…that relevant landowners and communities are fully informed of the change”

within one month of the Bill receiving Royal Assent. I trust that the wise words of the Select Committee can be recognised and reflected in the new clause.

[Mr Goodwill]

The Bill contains measures that could have been used to make passive provision for a future spur of the railway to Heathrow airport. Passive provision is a little bit like when I used to play with our Hornby railway set. If someone puts a set of points in, they can join a new bit of line without disrupting the operation of the existing line.

On 9 March 2015, the Secretary of State advised, in response to a House of Commons written answer, that the spur would not be implemented as part of HS2 phases 1 or 2. Paragraph 155 of the Select Committee’s second special report of Session 2015-16 highlights that, following the update on 9 March 2015,

“there remains a risk of blight on properties on the trajectory of the previously envisaged spur. We direct the Promoter not to use the Bill powers to implement passive provision for a Heathrow spur.”

The report directs that the promoter

“should take immediate steps to ensure that relevant landowners and communities are fully informed of the change.”

I can confirm that we accept the Select Committee’s direction regarding the Heathrow spur and that we will not use the powers contained in the Bill to implement passive provision for a Heathrow spur. The assurance will be added to the undertakings and assurances register so the Secretary of State would be accountable to Parliament were that commitment breached.

I confirm that we have taken the necessary steps to ensure that relevant landowners and communities are fully informed of the change. Indeed, the connection from Old Oak Common to Heathrow via the Elizabeth line—the line that Her Majesty has graciously allowed us to name after her—will allow eight trains per hour with 11-minute journey times. It is quite clear that there is already a clear vision for a connection between Old Oak Common and Heathrow station.

If we were looking at the timetabling of HS2 with a Heathrow spur, it would be inflexible to have maybe one or two trains an hour to Heathrow when passengers could enjoy the flexibility of taking a train from Birmingham South or, indeed, from Euston towards Old Oak Common, to connect to Heathrow airport.

I believe that I have addressed all points made by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough and I hope that the new clause will be withdrawn. I hope that all those who may have been concerned that we were planning to build the Heathrow spur or, indeed, about the passive provision, will be assured that we have no intention whatever of doing so.

[Andy McDonald]

I am very grateful to the Minister. He has rather nailed it by dealing with all the issues in a clear and direct way, and he will be doing everything we ask of him in the new clause. I was a little concerned that we were not going to hear about his contacting the relevant landowners but, in every measure, the Minister has described how he will give full import and effect to the recommendation of the Select Committee. I readily acknowledge that, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 41

Minimising the use of land at Washwood Heath

(1) The Secretary of State and the nominated undertaker shall use best endeavours to keep to a minimum—

(a) the amount of land at Washwood Heath, Birmingham that is required (either temporarily or permanently) during phase one construction and associated works; and

(b) the length of time for which such land is required,

in order to maximise early development and job creation post-construction.

(2) Within 24 months of the commencement of the use of land at Washwood Heath, and annually thereafter, the Secretary of State and the nominated undertaker must prepare a report on the discharge of the duty under subsection (1).

(3) Each report must be laid before both Houses of Parliament. —(Andy McDonald.)

This new clause seeks to minimise the use of land at Washwood Heath, both in terms of amount of land and duration of use.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Andy McDonald]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. We are on a little bit of a tour from Camden to Heathrow and now up to Washwood Heath in Birmingham. On the face of it, the new clause is rather sober and is perhaps not that attractive to the casual observer. However, it is extremely important for reasons that I will explain.

The new clause would minimise the use of land in both extent and time. Washwood Heath, 3.5 km east of Curzon Street, will be the site for HS2’s rolling stock maintenance depot, and the depot’s location and ability to operate efficiently will be critical to the railway’s functioning. Washwood Heath is an area of high unemployment that lies at the junction of the Ladywood, Erdington and Hodge Hill constituencies. Together, those three constituencies are home to 45% of Birmingham’s unemployed. As of February 2016, Birmingham, Hodge Hill and Birmingham, Ladywood are two of the top four constituencies in the UK for claimant rate as a percentage of the economically active population aged 16 to 64, and they are two of the top four constituencies in the UK for long-term youth unemployment claims.

Although the maintenance depot will create jobs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) forcibly argued the case that its potential for additional regeneration needs more recognition. Birmingham City Council originally planned to use the site to build a business park that would have created an estimated 6,000 jobs, but HS2 earmarked it as the home of a new maintenance depot instead, creating just 300 to 600 jobs. He was successful in persuading the HS2 Select Committee of the need to minimise the use of land at Washwood Heath and was instrumental in pushing the Select Committee to direct a review to minimise the use of land by the promoter and to maximise opportunities for employers to establish themselves after construction.

The proposed Washwood Heath site is the size of 100 football pitches—I will not comment on whether there is a decent football team to play on them—but nevertheless it makes up one third of the industrial land in Birmingham. Ensuring that such a significant amount of industrial land is used most efficiently, allowing for the creation of employment opportunities, would be crucial in any part of the country, but it is a particular priority in an area that is so blighted by unemployment. The area potentially to be handed back after construction is now 50% greater than in HS2’s original plans. The council estimates that the land now freed up can accommodate 3,000 much-needed jobs, rather than the 300 jobs in HS2’s original plans, which is a welcome development. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for his persistence and persuasiveness in making that case.

The extent of the land temporarily required, and for how long it will be so required, will affect the extent of further opportunities for job creation, so it is critical that both the amount of land and the time for which it is required are kept to a minimum. The new clause would require the Secretary of State to use his or her best endeavours to keep to a minimum the amount of land required during the construction of phase 1, as well as the length of time for which such land is required.

Considering the importance of the opportunities for job creation at Washwood Heath, as well as the perceived unsatisfactoriness of HS2 Ltd’s previous dealings with landowners at Washwood Heath, there should be special emphasis to ensure that the Secretary of State and the nominated undertaker work with the landowners to make sure that as much land as possible is released as soon as possible to maximise early development and job creation.

The new clause would also require that within 24 months of the commencement of the use of land at Washwood Heath and annually thereafter the Secretary of State and the nominated undertaker prepare a report on the discharge of their duty under new clause 41(1) to minimise the amount of land used and the duration of its use, and lay each report before both Houses of Parliament, ensuring that there is sufficient oversight of the process to minimise the use of the land.

This is a crucial new clause for this community and its ambitions, and I trust that the Minister will be able to give it his and the Government’s support, and properly recognise the recommendations of the Select Committee.

[Mr Goodwill]

As the hon. Gentleman has just said, the Government have listened and we have taken action, not least because the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill, who represents this area, raised this issue in a Westminster Hall debate, and I was able to listen and respond in detail to the points he made. I have also received very detailed briefings about how this land could be best used to provide both facilities in connection with HS2 and much-needed jobs, which are being created in Birmingham in very large numbers.

As the hon. Gentleman has said, Washwood Heath will be the site of the new HS2 rolling stock maintenance depot. It is important that the design of the depot is not constrained to the point that it offers substandard operation. The depot will provide services for HS2 phase 1 trains, as well as supporting phase 2. I understand the imperative to release land at Washwood Heath to bring forward development and to create jobs for the local community, but we need to get the balance right so that both HS2 and the development can happen.

The issue of releasing land early and increasing the total amount of land released for development at Washwood Heath was discussed during the HS2 Select Committee process. We were instructed by the Select Committee in November 2015 to work with AXA, the major landowner on the site, to consider how depot design and temporary land take for spoil treatment and storage could be revised to release land for development.

Through ongoing design refinements, we have been able to increase the amount of residual land available for development from 16 hectares, as outlined in the original build design, to approximately 24 hectares. As part of this process, we have reviewed the land required for HS2 construction purposes and identified an area of approximately 4 hectares at the bottom end of the site that could be made available for immediate development.

We have committed to consider further reductions to the permanent footprint of the depot and to the temporary land take for construction as part of a detailed design. This will include looking into the feasibility of providing an underground temporary water storage system, which would enable car parking to be located on the surface of the water storage areas, thereby further increasing the areas of residual land available for employment generation.

In addition, Saltley business park, which is just west of the Washwood Heath site, is being considered as a potential alternative for certain construction activities currently planned for Washwood Heath. The use of that site will be kept under review, provided that it does not prejudice existing or future employment opportunities at Saltley business park or the timely, economic and safe delivery of HS2. Of course, use of the site would be subject to obtaining all necessary powers and consents.

We have already given a commitment to Parliament to continue to seek to reduce the HS2 footprint at Washwood Heath where reasonable. Therefore, there is no need to include such a clause within the Bill and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the new clause.

[Andy McDonald]

I am grateful again to the Minister. He has taken very seriously the comments of the Select Committee and he has gone a long way to responding to its pleadings and to those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill.

I regret to say that I am not persuaded to withdraw the new clause, because it is necessary that this important clause appears in the Bill. This is a crucially important investment issue for that part of the world and the new clause would give additional confidence to those who wish the area to be otherwise developed if we made it abundantly clear on the face of the Bill that there is that obligation, minimising duration and scope of the land taken for HS2. For those reasons, I ask that the matter be put to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

Division 11

Ayes: 5

---

Labour: 5

Noes: 8

---

Conservative: 7

[Mr Goodwill]

On a point of order, Mr Chope—a rather spurious one—may I take this opportunity before we conclude proceedings to thank everybody who has participated in the debates last week and this week? The debate has ranged widely, from ancient pear trees to the Clapham omnibus, from air quality to burial grounds and even to cheese parmos. I wonder whether the nominated undertaker would be required if one were to eat too many cheese parmos. Possibly the utilisation of the burial ground might follow on, as night follows day.

There has been a spirit of cross-party engagement. The project will span many years and generations. It was conceived under a Labour Government, and I hope it will be delivered by a Conservative Government. The leaders of the great cities of the north, many which are unfortunately under the control of the Labour party and regularly receive the support of Labour party voters, are integral to delivering the scheme. The possible exception to that cross-party engagement was the short debate on the nationalisation of the railways; I think that that debate will rumble on until and beyond the general election.

I thank you, Mr Chope, for your excellent chairing of the Committee. Please pass on my thanks to Mr Hanson, who chaired our meetings last week. I thank the members of the Committee and the secretariat, who have done such good work keeping us together; my officials in the Department for Transport; those who keep the record in the Official Report; and those who maintain the security of the Committee by ensuring that the doors are locked in a timely way. I think that history will show this as another step towards our goal of delivering a 21st-century railway of which many generations will be proud, realising that the work that we did here made a difference to this country’s future.

[Andy McDonald]

Further to that point of order, Mr Chope, may I also express my thanks to you for chairing so expertly, and to Mr Hanson, who performed superbly, saving us from an invasion by the House of Lords? At one point he got a good deal of exercise, and I think he owes us a debt of gratitude for his improved physicality after bobbing up and down to move through clauses with great rapidity. We had an excellent discussion about the man on the Clapham omnibus—

High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill (Fourth sitting)

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Thursday 3rd March 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Andy McDonald]

Good afternoon, Mr Hanson. I hope that everyone else had a wonderful lunch; I didn’t.

The amendment would require the Secretary of State to reach another reasonable decision—the man on that omnibus keeps coming back—so we are proposing to insert “reasonably”. Although reasonableness is the Minister’s middle name and everything that the Government do, we are told, is reasonable, there appears to be a curious reluctance to deploy the term in the Bill and to make the obligation reasonably clear and obvious. I implore the Minister, at least in this narrow context, to embrace the concept.

Without doubt, one of the primary benefits of investment in infrastructure projects such as High Speed 2 is the opportunity for transformative redevelopment in affected areas. HS2 has presented a number of opportunities that have been grasped. We also appreciate that projects on the scale of HS2 will be ongoing for a significant time. Not all opportunities for redevelopment of land can feasibly be identified in the early stages, so further opportunities might present themselves over the coming months and years.

In principle, therefore, we support a power for the Secretary of State to acquire land compulsorily for the purposes of redevelopment, but with certain caveats. The clause as drafted will grant the Secretary of State wide-ranging, blanket powers to acquire land, with little accountability or restriction. Our amendments seek to particularise and limit the powers granted and to ensure greater accountability if he or she chooses to exercise the powers. The amendment is self-explanatory. We have had a healthy discussion about reasonableness, but it is also worthy of note that the wording of subsection (1) simply states:

“If the Secretary of State considers that the construction or operation of Phase One of High Speed 2 gives rise to the opportunity for regeneration or development of any land, the Secretary of State may acquire the land compulsorily.”

We expect the construction phase to last some 10 years. Earlier, we had a discussion about the good sense of covering contingencies, although the Opposition have failed to convince the Government that such powers should not be totally and utterly open-ended. As drafted, the clear import and effect of the clause is not only on the construction phase, but on the operation of HS2—it states “or operation”.

The HS2 project has been planned for the long term. We salute our Victorian forebears for their engineering skill, invention and ingenuity. However, the network and the services on it have run for the best part of 200 years; it will soon be the 200th anniversary of the Stockton-Darlington line, the world’s first passenger train. The journey between Stockton and Darlington on Stephenson’s Rocket must have been something to behold. It would have been very dramatic with the man with the red flag walking out in front of the train as it made its way; it was not known what effect—

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

I think the hon. Gentleman might find that it was Locomotion No. 1 on the first run.

[Andy McDonald]

I stand corrected. The Minister is entirely right. The Rocket gets a lot of acclaim; it used to occupy pride of place in Darlington railway station, but it is there no more—there is a mere representation on the wall. I bow to my friend’s greater knowledge.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

The Rocket, as the hon. Gentleman will no doubt recall, was the successful engine in the Rainhill trials, beating the Sans Pareil, which came second.

[The Chair]

Order. I remind hon. Members that we are discussing the amendment but also that William Huskisson, a former Secretary of State, was killed by the Rocket on its first day out. I think that is a warning to Members of Parliament to stay away from this area and stick to the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald]

Indeed. The point is that the Victorian railway has been around for a very considerable time. We have benefited enormously from Victorian innovation and taken it forward into the next generation of high-speed rail travel. Once completed, phase 1 will surely be in operation for hundreds of years—we all agree that it will be operational for two centuries. That is a wonderful prospect.

However, under the current drafting a Secretary of State will be able to enjoy compulsory purchase powers over the land for the entire duration of phase 1. That is a hugely significant power and I trust that the Minister can see the merit in qualifying that wide-ranging power. The amendment will not inhibit in any way the development or operations of phase 1. It will simply introduce some degree of reasonable objectivity into the Bill, so that in years ahead—we could be talking 50, 75 or 100 years—landowners can be assured that their land and property, left intact until then, is not unfairly or unexpectedly drawn into the operation of compulsory acquisition under the Act.

Thus far, there has been no such qualification. I trust that the Minister will agree with the logic of our position and accept the amendment.

[Mr Goodwill]

As we have just heard, clause 48 refers to compulsory acquisition of land for regeneration or relocation. It enables the Secretary of State to promote a compulsory purchase order if he considers that the construction or operation of phase 1 of HS2 gives rise to an opportunity for regeneration or development of that land. The clause further enables the Secretary of State to promote a compulsory purchase order to acquire land to relocate all or part of an undertaking where, as a result of the exercise of powers under the Bill, the former site is no longer reasonably capable of being used for the undertaking. Subsection (4) provides that the normal process relating to compulsory orders is to apply.

The power is included in the Bill because Ministers wish to maximise the potential economic benefits from phase 1 of HS2 to ensure that local areas make the most of the opportunities that the railway will provide and to support relocation of businesses. It is considered that phase 1 of HS2 will give rise to significant opportunities to promote or facilitate regeneration development. However, assembling a coherent and developable site is an essential part of bringing forward such development and that would not be possible without the ability to have recourse to the powers of compulsory purchase.

As we say in information paper C11, we see this as a backstop power. It would normally be for local landowners and local authorities to come together to assemble land to bring forward regeneration. However, that may not be possible in some cases and regeneration opportunities could be lost. Ebbsfleet is a good example because development, although now under way, has been much delayed and such powers could have enabled more effective land assembly earlier.

Of course, all that does not mean that phase 1 of HS2 will be able to take land wherever it wants. All the measure does is enable the Secretary of State to promote a compulsory order when the construction or operation of phase 1 creates regeneration or development opportunities. Such an order would then need to go through the normal process, including a local inquiry, if there were objections.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

I think I get the gist of what the Minister is saying. When a regeneration project, perhaps in Manchester or on another part of the line, is connected to the benefits that HS2 will bring, does he expect the normal process of land accumulation and scheme formation to occur? Is this measure a reserved power should there be a legal problem in assembling the site? “Backstop power” was the phrase he used. Does he envisage that the normal process would apply for regeneration work to occur in a local area?

[Mr Goodwill]

The hon. Gentleman is right. The owners of land close to HS2 stations or areas where HS2 will have an economic benefit will be grasping such opportunities with both hands. The land will have achieved an uplift in value and the opportunities will be fantastic. Problems might include a particular landowner not wanting to co-operate or another acquisition problem. This is not just about land development, but about the relocation of businesses, and I can think of one or two such examples. We need to be sure that we can bring forward viable opportunities for businesses to be relocated, which will protect those particular jobs.

To promote a compulsory purchase order successfully, the Secretary of State would need to demonstrate three things. First, that a private purchase is not possible, so the land should be taken compulsorily. Secondly, that there is a reasonable prospect of the proposed development coming forward—in other words, that there is no obvious reason why planning permission would not be granted if has not been already. Thirdly, that there is a compelling public-interest need for the land. Taking an individual’s land interferes with their fundamental human rights, so it is only right that significant protections should be in place. The power does not change those protections at all. Although it extends beyond the construction period into operation, checks and balances will continue to be in place.

Although local authorities already have the power to make compulsory purchase orders, it does not always happen. The power is there to ensure that development does happen, and we would expect local authorities to take the opportunity to lead development in their areas. However, in certain circumstances local authorities might be unable to do so, either because regeneration opportunities straddle local authority boundaries or because a local authority does not have the specialist resource to undertake the compulsory purchase order process. In such circumstances, if development is not coming forward in a timeframe that maximises the opportunity, the Government will be able to use this power to accelerate the process, following consultation with the relevant local authority.

Of course, there are safeguards to protect landowners. Planning permission for any developments would need to be obtained in the usual way, and the compulsory purchase order would be made only if there was a reasonable prospect of obtaining planning permission and the compulsory acquisition could be justified as being in the public interest.

I turn to the amendments. The purpose of clause 48(1) is to ensure that the development and regeneration opportunities that HS2 presents are maximised in a timely manner. However, it is a backstop power. We expect local authorities or landowners to be able to capitalise on any opportunities. Indeed, that is already happening. For example, Birmingham City Council has already published its plans for the development of the Curzon Street area, and we support it on that. However, in the event that there are issues that impede development, such as effective land packaging, regeneration areas straddling different local authority boundaries and so on, we will have the ability to step in and to help the development progress. Any such developments that require land outside the Bill limits would require the promotion of a compulsory purchase order and, as I have explained, the rules are tightly drawn and must be adhered to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald]

I am grateful. I will touch on the Minister’s remarks about the description of the backstop power. I fully understand the way in which he is presenting that and it appears eminently sensible to me. He set out a good case for that approach.

My only concern is that the measure is unlimited in time. I have said to the Minister that the HS2 operation will run for a considerable time, well in excess of 100 years, and my concern is about the principle of that power hanging around for that length of time. However, he has given me certain assurances on that.

Amendment 24 deals with geographical limit. My point is a similar one. I do not know whether the Minister can provide clarification, but at the moment there is no such geographical limit in the description of “any land”, which concerns the Opposition.

[Mr Goodwill]

Relocation of businesses might not be limited to areas close to the line. Indeed, I can think of one business that needs a railhead, so any relocation could be to a different place in the region to enable continued access to a railhead.

[Andy McDonald]

That is helpful insofar as it goes, but in the Bill the implication is much wider. I understand that land could be identified for development in London or Birmingham, but the Bill will allow the Secretary of State to acquire land in the Outer Hebrides or the constituency of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun; he might welcome such acquisitions, but I am not sure that was ever the intent. I ask the Minister to think about whether there should be some qualification because, as the Bill stands, the Secretary of State could acquire compulsorily land that had absolutely no connection whatever with the HS2 project.

On amendment 25, the Minister gave a very full answer about the way in which local authorities can be engaged. If he is not going to accept the amendment, as he indicated he will not, he should understand that it does speak to some important issues. There is the method of local authority engagement that he described, which I welcome, but there is a risk of conflict between settled local development plans and the Secretary of State’s coming along to exercise these powers. They could find themselves directly in conflict.

If I heard the Minister correctly, he outlined how that engagement might take place and how matters might be resolved. Nevertheless, as it stands, the clause would give the Secretary of State pre-eminence over the wishes of the local people expressed through their representatives by way of their development plan or its equivalent.

Everyone in this place favours increased and greater devolution in one form or another. Unamended, the clause has the potential to drive a coach and horses through the principles of devolution and local accountability and power, because the pre-eminence is with the Secretary of State. The Minister has already commented, so I hope he will forgive my asking him to consider those remarks. I do not seek to press the amendment to a vote. The Minister might be able to offer some words of reassurance: that the Government do intend to work with local authorities in the full spirit of co-operation that we referred to earlier.

Amendment 23 deals with the better definition of the term “opportunity for regeneration or development”. I am not sure we have had that better defined today. The Minister has said there is no need for that to happen, but I can foresee circumstances where an objection would be raised. Might it not be better to have that settled as a definition, so that there can be no doubt once land has been identified for regeneration on those terms?

I do not intend to press these matters to a vote, but I would be grateful for further comments from the Minister.

[Mr Goodwill]

By all means. I have been trying to think of situations where land may need to be purchased a distance away from the line. I can think of two in particular. One involves businesses. There is a large car dealership, for example, at Old Oak Common; we will work with them to relocate so that the other development can take place. I am also thinking of the Hillingdon outdoor activity centre, which has been a particularly difficult community enterprise that we are seeking to relocate. It could be that the alternative site would be some distance away from the boundaries of the line.

The other issue is depots. Some of the work we are doing means that depots for other rolling stock facilities have to be displaced some distance away. In the case of businesses, the company might want to relocate tens of miles away, if that is convenient, although we would generally need to work with businesses that wish to retain their workforce and, therefore, not move particularly far away.

On timing, I am pleased the hon. Gentleman is confident that the line will run for several centuries. It is important to remember that local authorities already have compulsory purchase order powers and they could promote an order at any time. The clause, as drafted, would not create any additional uncertainty.

On geographical location, the compulsory order checks and balances would, of course, provide appropriate limitations. It would need to be demonstrated that the land did need to be purchased under CPO powers. Indeed, it could be argued that if the site were challenged by the landowner, they could come forward with alternative concerns.

I am pleased that we managed to react to the points the hon. Gentleman sensibly raised in amendments 24 and 25. Following the proceedings in the Hybrid Bill Committee, the Secretary of State is required to consult local authorities.

The co-operation and engagement of local authorities, particularly in the great cities of the north that will primarily benefit from this, have been outstanding. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues in those Labour administrations that have engaged with us so effectively. They understand the importance of this for the north.

[Andy McDonald]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 48 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 49

Power to carry out reinstatement works

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Mr Goodwill]

Clause 49 applies to the power to carry out reinstatement works. It allows the nominated undertaker to carry out reinstatement works within the Bill limits in relation to property, including a business or facility that has been discontinued or substantially impaired, in whole or in part, arising from the exercise of any power under the Bill. The clause aims to assist those affected by the construction of HS2 by providing an efficient mechanism for moving properties such as businesses and reducing the requirement for extinguishment, thus protecting jobs.

Subsection (4) allows the Secretary of State to direct that the deemed planning permission under clause 20(1) does not apply in relation to particular reinstatement works. That will enable the Secretary of State to grant deemed planning permission for the development, subject to conditions to be discharged by the local planning authority.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 49 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 50

Enforcement of environmental covenants

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Mr Goodwill]

I am particularly enthusiastic about clause 50, which relates to the enforcement of environmental covenants. It enables the Secretary of State to ensure that following the construction of the scheme, he may impose conditions on land released where such land contains environmental mitigation for HS2. This is to ensure the maintenance of mitigation measures, upgrades to the mitigation if required and prohibition on uses of the land where such uses would detrimentally affect the measures in place.

The clause binds successors in title into any covenant agreed with previous landowners. The Secretary of State or an authorised person may enforce the agreement.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 50 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 51

Works in Scotland for Phase One purposes

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Mr Goodwill]

Clause 51 gives Scottish Ministers an order-making power relating to carrying out works in Scotland for phase 1 purposes. As phase 1 of HS2 will also operate classic compatible trains, some services will continue north from Birmingham at conventional speed to Scotland. Some existing infrastructure in Scotland may, therefore, need alteration—for example, platform lengthening or amendments to depots where the classic compatible rolling stock will be stabled.

Subsection (2) sets out that specified provisions relating to section 1 of the Transport and Works (Scotland) Act 2007 also apply to an order made under the clause.

[Andy McDonald]

I rise to take the opportunity to highlight the fact that phase 1 will ultimately be running further north into Scotland on conventional lines once HS2 is completed through to Manchester and Crewe. Scotland will directly benefit from this investment, which will considerably reduce times back on to the conventional lines from HS2 when it is completed.

[Mr Goodwill]

Yes, the plan is that there will be two types of rolling stock on the line. There will be the high-speed captive trains, which can operate only on the new lines, but classic compatible trains will also run through. From day one, trains will be running through to Glasgow and possibly beyond. Crews will be placed in Scotland on day one manning those trains as they leave to come down and seamlessly transition on to the high-speed line to complete their journey. HS2 will be very good news for the north of England—and Scotland, that very important part of our country.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

I welcome that example of Scottish Government forward planning for high-speed operation. This is just a reminder, but between Crewe and Scotland the trains will actually run slower than they do at present. Overall the journey time will reduce, but this is a wee reminder to the Minister that we need to look at some improvements on the existing line between Crewe and the border in order to try to allow compatible trains to run fast as well. I appreciate that overall there is a shorter journey time, and I do welcome that.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 51 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 52

Power to apply Act to further high speed rail works

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Mr Goodwill]

Clause 52 gives powers to apply the Act to further high-speed rail works; possibly the sort of works that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun referred to. It allows the use of a Transport and Works Act 1992—TWA—order to gain the necessary provisions for extensions or additional works relating to phase 1 of HS2, beyond the works outlined in the Bill. That relates to relatively minor transport works, such as an additional track to connect to rail sidings. This power would not be used to promote future phases of HS2. Those would be subject to the hybrid Bill process. A TWA order cannot apply the provisions of the Bill that enable the Secretary of State to extend the time limit for the exercise of compulsory purchase powers or the provisions relating to listed buildings or ancient monuments.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 52 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 53

Rights of entry for further high speed rail works

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Mr Goodwill]

Clause 53 concerns rights of entry for further high-speed rail works. It allows a person authorised by a justice of the peace or sheriff, for residential properties, or by written consent from the Secretary of State, for non-residential properties, a right of entry to properties within 500 metres of the centre line of future high-speed rail phases or projects, for the purposes of undertaking surveys or environmental assessment.

For future HS2 phases or other high-speed rail projects, this power is exercisable only if the Secretary of State has proposed to introduce a Bill promoting a high-speed railway by means of a Command Paper. The power is exercisable only within five years of the publication of that Command Paper. It does not apply to a railway wholly in Scotland.

The clause makes it clear that a warrant may be issued or authorisation given only where it appears that there is a genuine need to enter the land relating to the construction of the high-speed railway line, and all reasonable attempts have been made to obtain consent to enter the land.

The Secretary of State may, by order, change the distance of 500 metres. The order is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, unless it provides a different distance only in relation to a specified category, such as noise surveys, in which case the order is subject to the negative resolution procedure.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 53 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 54

Exercise rights of entry

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Mr Goodwill]

Clause 54 relates to exercise of rights of entry. It sets out the process for exercising the rights of entry under clause 53 and provides safeguards for property owners.

The validity of any warrant obtained under clause 53 is time-limited to six weeks from the date issued. A right of entry under clause 53(1) is exercisable at any reasonable time. A person authorised under clause 53 to enter land must ensure that the property owner is given at least 14 days’ notice before entry is sought. If a person wilfully obstructs any authorised person exercising this right of entry, they are committing an offence.

[Andy McDonald]

We had a lengthy discussion about time limits. On the face of it, this proposal of six weeks for validity of the warrant seems curtailed and short. I do not know whether that is how such things are ordinarily done, but can the issue be returned to and subsequent warrants sought if it is not exercised in the six-week period?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

May I explain why we have to do this? While we were developing route options for the stage that is under consideration at the moment, a number of landowners did not allow access to land. That gave us some very real problems, particularly in the way that we surveyed some of the ancient woodland and environmental features. It was only when we subsequently could survey the land that we understood the problems in more detail. The proposal would also apply to some of the noise modelling that we need to do, because it is often important to be able to do that work.

We also have a particularly intractable problem in the London borough of Hillingdon. In the Hillingdon outdoor activities centre, we want to go into the lake to carry out some boring to see how a viaduct that we wish to construct in the lake can be done, and the London borough has prevented us from going on to that land. That is very disappointing indeed, because the organisation concerned—the charity that runs this fantastic activities centre—will lose the money that we were going to give them for the disruption that the work would cause, which is between £20,000 and £40,000. It will also mean that we cannot get access to that land until the Bill gets Royal Assent, so we will not be able to draw up as detailed a viaduct design as we would like. We want these viaducts to be designed in an exciting way, so it is disappointing that this has happened. With these powers, it will be possible in future cases to get on to the land to carry out the surveys, whether for engineering, construction or environmental reasons.

The short answer to the hon. Gentleman’s other question is yes: another warrant can be applied for, but an explanation for why the initial warrant was not exercised would need to be given.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 54 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 55

Grants for affected communities and businesses etc

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Mr Goodwill]

Clause 55 allows the Secretary of State to award grants to add benefit over and above committed mitigation and statutory compensation to local communities and economies that are demonstrably disrupted by the construction of HS2.

As announced in October 2014, the Department introduced the Community and Environment Fund and the Business and Local Economy Fund and allocated £30 million in total towards those funds to support local businesses and employment, or to improve local community facilities or the environment. Those funds will allow local communities who know their areas best to implement what they think will work for them. Further details are outlined in the HS2 information paper C12, which was published in November 2015.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 55 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 56

Application of powers to Crown land

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Mr Goodwill]

Clause 56 permits the authorised works to be carried out by the nominated undertaker on Crown land, or Crown land to be entered with the consent of the relevant Crown authority.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 56 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 57

Highways for which Secretary of State is highway authority

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Mr Goodwill]

Clause 57 relates to highways for which the Secretary of State is the highway authority—the strategic road network springs immediately to mind. It provides that the powers conferred on the nominated undertaker with respect to works may be exercised in relation to roads under the responsibility of the Secretary of State, subject to his agreement. Subsection (2) states that the Secretary of State can impose conditions in such an agreement.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 57 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 58

Crown Estate

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Mr Goodwill]

Clause 58 applies provisions of the Crown Estate Act 1961, which contains limitations on the powers of disposal of the Crown Estate Commissioners. The limitations are removed in relation to Crown Estate land within the Bill limits that appears to the Crown Estate Commissioners to be required for phase 1 purposes. Similar provisions were included in the Crossrail Act 2008.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 58 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 59

Royal parks

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Mr Goodwill]

Clause 59 will enable the Secretary of State, with the approval of the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport—the Minister responsible for Royal Parks—to grant a lease or right over Royal Park land where that is required for phase 1 of HS2.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 59 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 60

“Deposited plans” and “deposited sections”

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Mr Goodwill]

This clause is not the most exciting one. It makes provision regarding the terms “deposited plans” and “deposited sections” for the purposes of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 60 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 61

Correction of deposited plans

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Mr Goodwill]

Clause 61 contains provisions for correcting the plans or book of reference to the plans that have been deposited in Parliament with the Bill, should that be required. There are similar provisions in the Crossrail Act 2008 and the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996.

[Andy McDonald]

I rise to comment on the deposited plans. The Minister and I visited Camden a short time ago, where we saw a centre devoted to communicating information to the local area and local community. What mechanisms are in place to ensure that any amendments or corrections to the plans are properly communicated to the people in the local area affected by them?

[Mr Goodwill]

The majority of people access plans using the internet. Of course, when corrections are made, they will immediately appear on those online plans. This is not about making changes but about making corrections where mistakes have been made. There have been more instances than I would have cared for where we have made minor mistakes on the plans, but if one looks at the extent of environmental information and the amount of mapping, it is almost inevitable that some mistakes will be made. The clause will ensure that those mistakes can be corrected after the plans have been deposited in Parliament.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 61 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 62

Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Mr Goodwill]

Clause 62 provides that where a building not forming part of the phase 1 works authorised in the Bill—for example, a building over a station—is built to replace a building demolished or substantially demolished under the Bill, the planning application for that replacement building must be accompanied by an environmental assessment subject to certain conditions set out in subsection (1). It is a very sensible provision.

[Andy McDonald]

I am grateful to the Minister for supplying me with the weighty tome of the environmental impact assessment. To show that I have started to read it, I should tell the Minister that I noticed that the assessment came about because of a European Union directive dealing with matters such as damage to the environment and air quality. That was a very welcome intervention by the European Union in protecting our environment.

[Mr Goodwill]

There has been debate as to how far the Government have complied with the Aarhus convention with regard to some of our environmental considerations. The Aarhus convention is separate from the European Union, although I have to agree with the hon. Gentleman —as someone who believes Britain is better in the European Union than out of it—that much of the EU’s environmental legislation is protecting people’s health here.

When representatives from the Commission came to the UK and saw the extent of our environmental work and consultation, they were very happy indeed that we were fulfilling all our obligations. A number of people have said that it is difficult to build anything in this country because of all the environmental legislation, but I think it is important that we protect our environment. Some of the areas through which we are building the line have particularly sensitive ecosystems. I am therefore proud that we have managed to do this with no net environmental loss, which is fantastic, and that 2 million trees will be planted, which will further enhance the environment.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 62 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 63

Arbitration

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Mr Goodwill]

The clause sets out how disputes are to be dealt with by arbitration under the Bill. Similar provisions were included in the Crossrail Act 2008.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 63 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 64

Notices and other documents

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Mr Goodwill]

The clause relates to serving notices or other documents on any person where required or authorised under the Bill. The clause allows a document to be served by email or other electronic means where the recipient has agreed to that electronic means of service. However, a notice seeking a right of entry for the purposes of further high-speed rail works under clause 53 cannot be given by electronic means.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 64 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 65

“Phase One purposes”

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Mr Goodwill]

The clause defines “Phase One purposes” as used in the Bill. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough asked earlier why the definition had been drafted to include references to further stages of the HS2 project and expressed concerns that the power to acquire land for phase 1 purposes under clause 4(1) might be extended to lands and plans that have not been specified at this stage.

Paragraphs (b) and (c) of the definition have been included to refer to things that need to be done as an integral part of phase 1, to enable HS2 trains to use the HS2 route as a whole or to continue on to the existing rail network, such as the provision of sidings in Manchester; or to ensure that ancillary works provided for phase 1, such as signalling and electrification works, have sufficient capacity to cater for the wider route. The purposes under clause 4(2) for which land acquired may be used therefore include the construction of ancillary works that are designed to cater for both phase 1 and further phases of the HS2 route.

I can reassure the hon. Gentleman, however, that the power to acquire land is tightly constrained, because the power under clause 4(1) applies only to land within the Bill limits—that is, land within the boundaries shown on the plans deposited with the Bill. Most of the land within the limits are also within the limits of deviation from the works specifically described in schedule 1 to the Bill. Any additional land within the Bill limits required for ancillary works, accesses, construction sites and other ancillary purposes is identified in schedules 5, 7, 8, 11, 12 and 16, together with the purpose for which the land is required.

[Andy McDonald]

I thank the Minister for that thorough and comprehensive explanation. The definition was a matter of concern, although it might have been my interpretation of the drafting. It struck me that “Phase One purposes” had an elasticity that we would not ordinarily expect to see, but I fully accept the explanation given by the Minister. It is entirely logical and sensible, and I support the clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 65 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 66

Interpretation

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Mr Goodwill]

The clause defines various terms used throughout the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 66 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 67

Financial provision

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Mr Goodwill]

The clause is a standard one that appears in Bills to provide for the expenditure of public money—the careful expenditure of public money. It simply provides that any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State under the Bill shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 67 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 68

Commencement and short title

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Mr Goodwill]

The clause is a standard one that appears in Bills. The provisions of the Bill will come into force on Royal Assent, except for clause 11 and schedule 14, which will come into force under regulations made by the Secretary of State after the Housing and Planning Bill comes into force.

[Andy McDonald]

I thought that the Minister might propose to the Committee that the name be changed to the Elizabeth II line. I am disappointed that it will stay so boring and business-like, but be that as it may.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 68 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Jackie Doyle-Price.)