Govia Thameslink and Network Rail

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Wednesday 16th March 2016 Westminster Hall

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

It is indeed an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Horsham (Jeremy Quin) on securing this important debate, and I also congratulate hon. Members from all parties on articulating their case so well. This railway line has been described as the “misery line” and “the line from hell”, and given hon. Members’ accounts of it one can readily understand why.

The question of railway performance and effective working relationships between railway operators and Network Rail is very much the order of the day. Indeed, this very day we will digest the long-awaited Shaw report into the future of Network Rail. I must confess that my journeys into London from 250 miles away sound a lot more efficient and comfortable than the journeys endured by hon. Members from all parties in the House. It has been said that what Network Rail needs are the right people with the right plan. Hopefully they will start to emerge, but then it is about the delivery of what passengers want, as opposed to ripping things up and starting again. We await the recommendations of the Shaw report with great interest.

Today, however, we are dealing with the current very sorry state of affairs on the biggest franchise that has ever been let, which is the combined Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern, or TSGN, franchise. It covers an enormous territory, centring as it does on our ever-growing capital city, and ranging from King’s Lynn in the far north-east—it is all relative, if that is the “far north-east” for this franchise—to Milton Keynes in the north-west, to Southampton and Portsmouth in the south-west, through to Horsham and to Hastings and Maidstone in the south-east. It takes in the connections to Gatwick airport and, ultimately, converges on central London and some of our very busiest mainline stations, including London Bridge, which has been the focus of such significant complaints in recent times.

I will get straight to it and say that this was undoubtedly an ambitious franchise when it was let in 2014. Although I do not wish to diminish by one jot the considerable concerns that Members have, a very significant amount of disruption was always going to be involved with such a major project. One of the major concerns that have arisen—I hope that the Minister will address it—is the extent to which there has been sufficient honesty with the travelling public about the correctly predicted diminution in the standards of service for the duration of the works, and whether that assessment has been made and properly communicated to passengers. We have heard of people being, on the face of it, deliberately misled.

There has to be a degree of accuracy and honesty about what is achievable. Failing to highlight adequately the difficulties that such major undertakings present, and not communicating all of that to the travelling public, serves only to increase dissatisfaction and dash high hopes and expectations. In addition, given the performance issues that have arisen since the franchise was let, questions arise about whether those performance issues ought to have been better identified before the start of the franchise. I therefore ask the Minister to set out what measures are being taken to address those matters and to say what lessons can be learned, especially in the context of the equally ambitious plans for Waterloo station and Euston, which are a consequence of our decision to proceed with High Speed 2. In short, we do not want to see a repeat of the difficulties encountered at London Bridge at other major rail hubs.

I say the franchise was rightly ambitious, because at its heart was a major infrastructure scheme to vastly improve capacity and performance. To that end, London Bridge is undergoing a major reconstruction and transformation, and I believe that work is expected to be completed by 2018. Among many other things, those works will facilitate 12-car Thameslink trains and a new station concourse to improve passenger circulation, which is currently very badly disrupted.

The network is characterised by increased passenger numbers and overcrowding, and significant safety concerns have been outlined, which should alarm us all. However, the outfall in addressing these issues cannot be underestimated. TSGN’s ability to get trains running to timetable is not good. The percentage of franchise trains arriving at their destination on time stands at 81.7%, compared with the industry average of 89.3%. While that is an improvement from 76% and 79% in the previous two years, it still means that nearly one in every five trains do not arrive on time. Judging from the accounts of hon. Members today, it sounds as if those late trains can be clustered together in much higher ratios.

The “right time performance measure” measures arrival time against trains arriving early or within 59 seconds of schedule. Network Rail says that it is not an entirely reliable measure, but in any event it currently tells the sorry story of a compliance rate of only 52.6%, against the industry average of 64.8%. That means that nearly half of TSGN trains do not arrive within 59 seconds of schedule. Given the experiences that have been outlined today, that proportion of late trains may be significantly more than 59 seconds out of its schedule. Similarly, the record on cancellations and significant lateness is 5.3%, against an industry average of 3%. That is a poor reflection, and that feeds through into customer satisfaction.

It is perhaps no surprise that the common factor in the low passenger satisfaction rates in the three bottom-ranked operators—Thameslink, Southern and Southeastern —is the shared line into London Bridge. It seems that passenger flows in and around London Bridge station may not have been correctly predicted. Does the Minister agree with that observation? Can any lessons be learned on the modelling of such matters? Will she comment on the specific measures that might be taken to improve the flow of passengers, given the establishment of the rail reparation fund for TSGN passengers? That was set up in December 2015 and is worth £4.1 million.

In August 2015 serious weaknesses were found by the regulator in the data used to settle new timetables. Network Rail was found to have overestimated the impact of those timetable changes on performance. It seems that there has been insufficient communication between Network Rail and the operators to accurately identify just what impact the new timetables would have. Will the Minister consider whether and how that process might have been better managed and look into additional mitigating measures that could be taken to ameliorate the adverse impacts? There have been issues surrounding the numbers of train drivers, and we have heard that it is not simply that people are failing to turn up—insufficient numbers have been recruited. There is an issue about platform availability during the major works. Will she comment on that?

Efforts are being made to address to some degree the concerns expressed this afternoon, but I look forward to securing some assurances from the Minister that steps will be taken as a matter of urgency to improve the passenger experience in the franchise ahead of what will, I hope, be an entirely happier story come the completion of the works and the introduction of new services in 2018.

A point was made about the sanctions that might be applied to the operator if it fails to abide by the terms of the franchise. Will the Minister give some assurance that, notwithstanding the change to the structure of Directly Operated Railways, the Department for Transport retains the capability to step in through that office in the event of chronic failure?

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Of course, when the east coast main line was returned to the public sector for five years, it made a surplus of something like £1 billion for the Treasury, and during that time it ran a very good service.

[Andy McDonald]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. While that was an excellent turnaround from a pretty dire situation, if this particular franchise is, as Members have outlined, so poor that it demands intervention, my concern is that we should still retain the capacity to do that. Given the recent changes to the DOR—it is no longer in the same form—I am concerned that it would not assist at all. Will the Minister address that point?

Will the Minister also address the pertinent issue of electronic ticketing? Members have correctly identified and highlighted the benefits that could be secured from an intelligent roll-out of electronic ticketing. Those benefits relate to access not only to fair fares, but to refunds. I understand that although several tens of millions of pounds was spent trying to progress that agenda, it has come to a shuddering halt and has simply been handed over to the operators.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Claire Perry)]

indicated dissent.

[Andy McDonald]

The Minister disagrees. I am enquiring, so perhaps she can enlighten and correct me. A number of Members have clearly made that reasonable demand on electronic ticketing, and it seems eminently sensible. We want to know what happened to that investment and how it will be progressed.

Finally, I was heartened to hear many Members from across the territory express, on behalf of their constituents, the need for proper staffing levels to be maintained in our railway stations. Many people spoke about difficulties in accessing ticket machines and computer systems. Often that was beyond their capabilities, whether because of information technology illiteracy, learning difficulties or other issues. That strong message came from Members’ contributions today. Will the Minister comment on how we can secure those reassurances that all members of the travelling public need? They need to see that human interface, and sadly it is clearly lacking in the operation of the franchise.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

If the Minister is kind enough to conclude her remarks no later than 3.57, that will allow Mr Quin three minutes to sum up before I put the motion to the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Thursday 10th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Claire Perry]

Of course. The best way to deliver station improvements is to get together the local group, the local enterprise partnership, local businesses and local communities. The record Government investment in the railways is best spent when it is pulled through to support local needs.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

What assurance can the Minister give that full accessibility for passengers with disabilities is made a priority in the refurbishment of railway stations? Will she ensure that the needs of passengers are central to the refurbishment or renovation of stations without any access provisions or stations that need upgrading? How can that be achieved, given the 40% cut to Access for All funding?

[Claire Perry]

I sometimes wonder whether we are reading the same papers. The Government are spending more on the railways—£38 billion—than has been spent at any time since the Victorian era. The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that disability access is hugely important. It is also important on the trains. All the train fleet will be disability compliant in the next few years. It is important, but we have a limited amount of money to spend on upgrading the railways, which were woefully neglected under his Government.

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

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 8th March 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

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

It is a pleasure to appear in front of you this morning, Mr Chope. The Committee has been successful and efficient. We had many interesting discussions last week. We concluded our discussion of the amendments and we now come to the new clauses.

New clause 20 concerns the HS2 design panel. On 10 December 2015, HS2 took another step from the drawing board to reality with the appointment of a new independent design panel to support HS2 in realising its aim of applying the best design principles to all its work. The panel, chaired by Sadie Morgan, will be the project’s independent adviser, helping it to deliver on its key design principles around people, place and time. A host of experts are engaged, including experts in urban design, landscape and equality, diversity and inclusion. I have seen that already in the session that I attended in Darlington, where there was clear engagement. That is woven into the fabric of HS2 and is to be welcomed.

Experts in digital and brand and product will work alongside internationally renowned architects, together with sustainability and engineering experts, to help guide HS2’s development, so it all bodes well. Sadie Morgan, the chair, said that the aim of the panel was to

“mentor and inspire HS2 to design a transformational railway system which will exceed all of our expectations.”

She also said:

“The British creative and engineering industry is already delivering outstanding examples of design excellence around the world. HS2 is a huge opportunity to bring that brilliance home.”

Indeed, the Minister echoed those words and said that the panel

“is crucial to ensure HS2 achieves its full potential for everyone. This includes making sure that passengers get the experience they want from HS2 and that it is sympathetic to the landscape through which it is built.”

He concluded by saying,

“We want HS2 to be a world class railway which maximises the benefits for the country. Having such a highly-skilled group of experts on board will help make travelling on it easy and pleasurable and ensure we have impressive stations to act as a catalyst for significant regeneration and economic growth.”

The chief executive, Simon Kirby, said that he was

“delighted the...Panel has now been formed. It’s a mark of HS2’s significance that it’s attracted such a wealth of talent to help us deliver this transformational piece of infrastructure for the nation. Forty five experts will form the independent design panel team, contributing to the project’s development in areas where their specialist experience and opinion is required.”

He went on to say:

“Cementing the principles of the Design Vision so early in HS2’s development will help it to play a key role in rebalancing the economy through delivering the benefits that flow from investing in Britain’s new high speed rail network.”

It is that principle of cementing the design vision that our new clause seeks to address. Sadly, I can see no reference to the HS2 design panel in the Bill, so we have tabled the new clause to secure assurances from the Minister that the nominated undertaker will make best use of the considerable expertise of those on the independent design panel and have regard to the design panel’s recommendations during the design work for phase 1. With that, I invite the Minister to take the opportunity to clarify the weight that the recommendations of the HS2 design panel will have with the nominated undertaker in the construction of High Speed 2.

[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.

[Andy McDonald]

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

In the new clause we address the thorny issue of public sector operation. There has been a great deal of consensus across the Committee thus far, with some notable exceptions; this, we respectfully acknowledge, is perhaps the most contentious issue between us.

If we consider the history of rail privatisation and its impact on the commuting public, it is not difficult to understand the overwhelming public support for bringing railway services back into public ownership. Quite simply, the privatisation of British Rail was a rushed, botched job, which had more to do with ideology than with any clear plan for the nations’ railways, and it left us with a fragmented, inefficient and unsafe network at that time.

[Sir Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)]

If that is the case, why, during 13 years of Labour government, did the hon. Gentleman’s party not do anything to change it?

[Andy McDonald]

To suggest that during 13 years of Labour government nothing was done is to misunderstand the position. A great deal of progress was made with renewals in the railway system, and that must be seen within the context of trying to pick up the pieces after the disaster that was Railtrack. I have already alluded to its appalling record. That left us with an unsafe railway. Much of the 13 years of Labour government was devoted to making it into the safest railway system in Europe. Many people in this room will remember having to reduce speeds down to almost walking pace, because of our concerns about the safety of the points systems and rails. We look back to Potters Bar and Ladbroke Grove, etc., and think of the disasters and loss of life.

To say that our experience of the privatisation of rail infrastructure is not a good one is a gross understatement. It is a huge fear on these Benches that the current proposals to break up Network Rail into eight route businesses may embrace the sorts of dangers that we sadly experienced in those years.

[Sir Simon Burns]

The hon. Gentleman talks about infrastructure, but he has avoided answering the specific question I asked him. If the running of the railways by private companies was so bad, why did not the previous Labour Governments of Blair and Brown renationalise them?

[Andy McDonald]

I will come on to our responses to some of the poor performances and, indeed, failures of the franchised private system. If the right hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I will come to that in greater detail later in my brief contribution. He will know as well as anybody that the McNulty report stated that the fragmentation of our rail network left us with an efficiency gap of between 30% and 40%, compared with other European networks. This means that money which should be used to address the cost of travel and to fund much-needed investment is needlessly wasted. We have been left with a ticketing system which is the most expensive and confusing ticketing structure in Europe. Commuters’ fairs are up by a quarter since 2010, having risen five times faster than wage growth.

Our rail network needs significant investment. Private and foreign state-owned companies are subsidised by the UK taxpayer, while profiteering at the expense of commuters. Far from learning the lessons of the past, the Government seem destined to repeat them.

In illustrating the benefits of publicly-owned operators, one could hardly ask for a better example than the recent case of the East Coast. The previous Labour Government took the important step of bringing the East Coast back into public operation, after the private operator reneged on its obligations in 2009. I have heard it said that failure is somehow a judge of success, in that if franchises fall over and fail, it demonstrates the veracity and robust nature of the franchising system. I do not think that really strikes a chord with the travelling public, who see an unreliable service that does not meet their satisfaction.

East Coast proved itself under public ownership to be the most efficient of operators. It returned almost £1 billion to the taxpayer in premium payments as well as investing every penny of profit—some £50 million—back into the service. In addition, directly operated railways kept fares down, had record passenger satisfaction and engaged the workforce with unparalleled success.

Today is an opportunity for the Conservative party to deliver what the public are asking for by supporting new clause 21, which would require passenger services operating on the whole or part of the high-speed line to be provided by a publicly-owned railway. I hope that when High Speed 2 is open for general use it will be celebrated as a national achievement. I do not agree with the Government that a nation capable of completing such a fantastic rail infrastructure project is not competent enough to operate passenger services, but that the Dutch, German and French are more than capable of doing that for us. Such an attitude that we are not competent enough to do what many of our European counterparts take for granted is effectively talking down our abilities as a nation.

I am sure that we will return to that debate numerous times in this Parliament, but I hope that I was persuasive enough to make the Minister see the veracity of our argument and that he and his hon. Friends will vote with us and with the wishes of the public in support of the new clause.

[Sir Simon Burns]

I do not want to enter a sour note in what have been harmonious proceedings so far, but I fundamentally disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s new clause. I am in good company, because the last two Labour Prime Minister’s shared my view: neither Tony Blair nor Gordon Brown ever wanted to re-privatise the railways while in power and they did nothing to re-privatise the running of them. He failed to answer my interventions on that.

I always find it slightly odd that those who—sadly, like me—are old enough to remember British Rail see it as the halcyon days when everything was wonderful: the trains ran on time; they were terribly cheap, notwithstanding the taxpayer subsidy of fares; and investment in improving the network overflowed. In fact, every time a Government—whether Labour or Conservative—was hit with an economic crisis, one of the first budgets mangled was that for nationalised industries and investment in the railways. That is why both the previous Labour Government and this Conservative Government have had to invest so much money in improving the rail network’s infrastructure: there was so little investment before privatisation.

The hon. Gentleman seems to think that it was a wonderful experience to ride the trains when they were publicly owned, but that was not the case. They were not more efficient and there was out-of-date rolling stock and collapsing infrastructure and, if we go back to 1963, a significant proportion of the network was closed down as a result of the Beeching report. I therefore really do not think that the answer is to turn the clock back to the bad old days as if they were some halcyon period that we should aspire to replicate today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald]

The Minister’s judgment is, as ever, accurate. We have had a thorough debate and the issue shows clear dividing lines between both sides of the Committee. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon for reminding us of some of the horrors that were experienced under the management of our infrastructure under the guise of Railtrack.

May I pick up on a couple of points? On British Rail, I hear what the Minister said, but I respectfully suggest that we are talking about an era when there was little faith or investment going into our railway system. We do a huge disservice to the British Rail engineers who kept that service going, effectively on a shoestring. We do them an injustice by not recognising the work that they did.

Virgin and the new services have been mentioned as an illustration of innovation and new services that can be brought into play. I note what the Minister says, but on that detail, because of the way that matters are currently structured and the potential for development of open access services, there is significant pressure and a countervailing argument. This suggests that Virgin/Stagecoach—my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon is quite right that it is principally a Stagecoach company—will not fulfil the promises that it made in the franchise specification to introduce new services to places such as Scarborough and Middlesbrough. While it is not strictly within the ambit of our discussion, perhaps Mr Chope might take the opportunity to speak with the regulator to ensure that nothing will happen that will undermine or betray those promises.

The Minister talked about the innovation of the IEPs being introduced under the current structure, including those that can be produced by Hitachi in Newton Aycliffe. I think we are all waiting with bated breath, because Hitachi is there for one very good reason: it has access to the single market. However, that is perhaps an argument for another day.

--- Later in debate ---

[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 ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[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.

[Andy McDonald]

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 24—Euston Station design: having regard to plan, guidance and undertakings etc.—

(1) The Nominated Undertaker must design HS2 Euston Station having regard to the Euston Area Plan and any other relevant Opportunity Area Frameworks and Guidance, and any other commitments or undertakings given by the Secretary of State to the London Borough of Camden, the Greater London Authority or Transport for London.

This amendment would ensure that designs for Euston Station are in keeping with assurances received by interested parties from HS2 Ltd, secured via the petitioning process. The design must be in keeping with relevant plans and guidance already published.

New clause 25—Integrated development of Euston Station—

(1) The Nominated Undertaker must design HS2 Euston Station in such a way that its design—

(a) facilitates the acceleration of the redevelopment of Euston Mainline Station,

(b) does not preclude future integration with a rebuilt Euston Mainline Station,

(c) does not preclude future integration with the Crossrail 2 proposals at Euston, and

(d) maximises the opportunity for mixed use over-site development, especially the maximisation of new affordable housing and the creation of open space.

This amendment would ensure that any development at Euston Station does not preclude the future redevelopment of and integration with the existing mainline station, nor integration with a future Crossrail 2 station at Euston, or maximising the potential for over-site development at Euston.

[Andy McDonald]

This group of new clauses deals specifically with Euston. Many of us have had the opportunity not only to visit Euston but to look at innumerable plans and photographs showing just how significant the development will be for the people of Camden. The thrust of the new clauses is to try to deal with some of the many and varied concerns that people have about the opportunities presented by the integration of the station building with HS2 and other elements.

New clause 23 would require an holistic design approach to ensure that HS2 platforms would not limit future integration with, and redevelopment of, the existing main line, plans for a Crossrail 2 station, or potential over site development. The nominated undertaker would be obliged to consult widely on design. New clause 24 would simply ensure that the station designs were in keeping with assurances received from HS2 Ltd by interested parties, secured via the petitioning process. It would accordingly require the design to be in keeping with already published plans and guidance.

--- Later in debate ---

[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 ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Andy McDonald]

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

This new clause’s clear objective is to put a provision in the Bill to address the very considerable concerns of Euston’s residents, so that everything that can be done is done to minimise the inevitable and significant disruption caused by heavy goods vehicles taking excavated and waste materials away from the site and bringing in construction materials. When I talk about excavation, I fully recognise that all the materials that will be extracted and excavated in respect of the tunnelling will be taken away by rail. However, it is the excavations outwith the tunnelling that concern me and which this new clause deals with.

We are talking about the development of a railway at and around the site of an existing mainline railway. That being so, transporting excavating materials and bringing construction materials by rail makes eminent sense and will go some considerable way towards mitigating the impact of construction on the community.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Andy McDonald]

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

This new clause seeks to address the concerns of communities affected by the HS2 construction works. There have been considerable concerns about the habitability of some of the properties close to the proposed HS2 works in which people are living. We have visited the sites and seen maps that show—certainly in Camden—properties that will not be demolished and will be extraordinarily close to the line of development.

One of the main areas of concern is the individual impact, which HS2 Ltd identified in its environmental statement. However, the cumulative effect of the various impacts on homes and habitability was not accounted for. HS2 Ltd’s methodology was to assess each impact individually. It proposed mitigation only if the impact is considered to be a significant hazard. HS2 Ltd assessed noise and visual impacts in the environmental statement, yet it looked at the combined impact only where more than one limit is breached.

Although HS2 Ltd’s approach is in line with current law, given the significant impact and duration of the scheme and the combined effect of the works, the Opposition believe that HS2 Ltd should go beyond the current statutory minimum to look at how the cumulative impact of the works affects the habitability of properties. There is currently no assessment of the cumulative effect where individual impacts are below the set limits, and there is also no assessment of the knock-on impacts that mitigation measures have.

Camden Borough Council provided an example. A home is close to the construction works. Its residents rely on opening its windows to ventilate it and enjoy the natural light. HS2 Ltd completes a noise assessment that concludes that the home is just below the limit required for noise insulation. Although the residents of the flat will hear the works, they do not qualify for extra window glazing as the noise levels they experience do not meet HS2 Ltd’s criteria. Once work starts, the residents keep their windows shut and their curtains closed to mask the noise, dust and unsightliness of the construction works. However, the lack of air and light to the property increases damp and mould and leads to overheating. The result is that the habitability of the property is affected and the residents’ living standards are reduced.

The concern is that there has not been an appropriate assessment of the cumulative impact of the works. Even if no individual limit has been breached, it is clear that the cumulative impact of the works might be significant, yet at present there is no sufficient mechanism through which the cumulative impact is assessed, which is an issue of concern to those who will be affected by the works authorised by the Bill.

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

Andy McDonald 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 ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[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.

[Andy McDonald]

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

I hope this will be a relatively straightforward matter and that it will give Committee members the opportunity to consider a commonly supported environmental issue: the need for there to be no net loss of trees as a result of the design and construction of HS2.

The Minister will be well aware of the concerns that have been raised by environmental groups, local authorities and community groups about the adverse impact of the construction and operation of HS2 on trees. Trees form a vital part of the heritage of our countryside and brighten the streets.

[Sir Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman raises a very important issue that concerns many people. To put his new clause in perspective, does he have any estimate of how many trees might be lost?

[Andy McDonald]

I am afraid I do not have the answer in terms of the raw number. I am pleased to note that there will be a commitment to plant a significant number of trees—I will come to that in very short order. The new clause gives us the opportunity to acknowledge the work that has been done by HS2 to ensure that up to 2 million trees, I think, will be planted. That is very much to be welcomed, so I entirely agree with him.

[Sir Simon Burns]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the commitment is 2 million trees. The point I was trying to tease out is that I cannot believe that 2 million trees are going to be destroyed in the building of HS2, so why is the new clause needed?

[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.

[Andy McDonald]

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

The new clause calls for an HS2 construction skills centre to be established in Euston. The construction of phase 1 of HS2 presents many opportunities for businesses and will create a significant number of employment opportunities. It is forecast that HS2 will create more than 24,000 new construction jobs. A significant number of those new jobs will be around the Euston development, and it is only right and proper that as many of the opportunities as possible be opened up to the population of Camden. On that issue, we presumably agree.

One of HS2’s notable impacts will be to provide exciting new job opportunities for people who might otherwise never have had such life chances. The new clause is designed to embed that objective in the scheme and in the community in Camden. To make the most of the opportunities that the scheme presents, it is important to ensure that the right workforce are available and in possession of the right skills to ensure that those opportunities are realised. We should be doing everything we can so that communities that are directly affected by the construction have every opportunity to benefit from it in terms of jobs and economic engagement generally.

Specifically in relation to Camden, we welcome the Secretary of State’s recognition of the role that King’s Cross construction skills centre has played in the London Borough of Camden. That skills centre has been a considerable success. Starting with HS1 and the channel tunnel rail link, and then evolving for King’s Cross Central, the skills centre has registered more than 6,000 people and delivered more than 2,200 training places, 1,100 construction-related qualifications and 2,340 jobs in total. We are pleased that the Secretary of State recognises the potential to build on that model to deliver on HS2’s objectives in relation to skills and employment, as well as the potential to integrate with other infrastructure projects such as the proposed Crossrail 2 in future.

Again, in accordance with assurances given to Camden Council, the Secretary of State will require the promoter actively to engage with the London Borough of Camden regarding the development of a Euston construction skills centre, and the Secretary of State will require the nominated undertaker to make a contribution up to a maximum of £4.1 million towards the cost of the construction, property costs, fitting out and ongoing running costs of the skills centre. That is to include 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 currently carrying out unskilled work; and the offering of appropriate training to local, disadvantaged and under-represented groups in order to promote fair and equal access to the employment opportunities generated by HS2, working closely with Camden Council, which will be responsible for setting up the skills centre.

Establishing the skills centre will be of great benefit to the project. It will provide the skilled workforce needed, and those who live in or near Camden will be able to take advantage of the new employment opportunities. The new clause would put in the Bill the important assurances already given to Camden Council to ensure that this opportunity is capitalised on. Like the other Ronseal new clauses, it simply ensures that the given assurance does what it says on the tin. I commend the new clause to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald]

My preference would of course have been for the commitments to be specifically stated on the face of the Bill, notwithstanding the assurances of which I am very much aware. In the circumstances, having heard what the Minister has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 36

Impacts of construction traffic

During construction of Phase One of High Speed 2, the Nominated Undertaker must ensure that the impacts from construction traffic on local communities (including all local residents and businesses and their customers, visitors to the area, and users of the surrounding transport network) are mitigated by its contractors where reasonably practicable.—(Andy McDonald.)

The Nominated Undertaker and its contractors must take all reasonable and practical steps to mitigate the impacts of construction traffic on local communities.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[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 ---

[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.

[Andy McDonald]

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

New clause 38 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, and it requires compliance to be recorded by way of an annual report to Parliament. Again, this new clause is informed largely by the concerns and anxieties expressed by Camden Borough Council about the potentially significant increases in pollution levels that the workings may produce.

There is considerable concern about the air quality in London generally, but in addition there are justifiable concerns about the extra pollution that may arise as a result of the necessary works involved in HS2. There are concerns not only about the disruption and turmoil caused to the atmosphere by the very nature of demolitions and excavations and so on, but by the additional heavy goods vehicles that will be using Euston’s roads for some considerable time, together with other major plant and equipment.

Happily, vehicles such as the HGVs that I mentioned, and as the Minister has advised me, have the capacity for on-board filtration apparatus that can often mean such vehicles can be less offensive to our lungs and other organs in terms of the air we breathe than some private saloon cars. I acknowledge that. Seemingly, it is not as easy to find ways of installing such sophisticated filtrations and treatments in an ordinary car simply because of the space that such units take up, and they can be better accommodated on board larger HGVs. I hope the Minster will give the Committee assurances that the HGVs that will be visiting the sites will be so fitted.

All of that is readily acknowledged, but again we are into the cumulative impact areas of discussion: not just the vehicle emissions, important as they are, but the air pollution caused by the construction itself and the cumulative effect of the activities involved in the workings. It is a reasonable submission simply to require in the Bill that the nominated undertaker and their contractors report on their compliance with agreed air quality and pollution standards for the project, any code of practice that is in place, traffic management plans and agreed guidance and standards.

Requiring the Secretary of State to lay a summary of such a report before both Houses of Parliament on an annual basis, from the year after Royal Assent until the conclusion of the construction period, will give all of us, particularly the residents of Camden who are in such a densely populated area in what must be one of the most concentrated construction areas of the entire HS2 development, a great sense of reassurance that pollution levels not only are being assiduously observed, but are within the limits imposed by the various standards. This speaks directly to the health issues discussed earlier in our debates. Not only are respiratory and other physical health issues being addressed, but the psychological issues of anxiety about pollution.

It is clear that many people have concerns about pollution levels, as evidenced by the ubiquitous face masks worn by cyclists and increasing numbers of pedestrians on the streets of our capital city. If physical and psychological health issues can be monitored and ameliorated in that work, it would be a beneficial move. I trust that the new clause, which would simply give effect to the assurances offered by the promoter, will find favour with the Government.

[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 ---

[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—

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

Person.

[Andy McDonald]

My hon. Friend is quite right; we corrected it to “person”. She scolds me correctly. We also had a tour around other jurisdictions, including Australia and the Bondi tram, which I am sure you would have found absolutely fascinating, Mr Chope, had you chaired that particular sitting.

There has been a great deal of consensus and good will among the parties; a lot of the good will sits on the other side of the Committee permanently. We have yet to hear in further detail about the Minister’s burial ground. I was curious whether the residents were still paying him rent. With that, Mr Chope, I thank you. I thank the Clerks specifically for their superb assistance to me and my assistant in preparing the Bill; the Doorkeepers; and, of course, the police who have kept us safe throughout the process. This is an important Bill, and we have given it proper attention and interrogation. I think that we all look forward to the fruition of a most important infrastructure project for the United Kingdom.

[The Chair]

I shall be delighted to pass on to my co-Chairman the generous remarks that have been made. I feel as though I have missed out, because I have had only one day in front of this extremely genial Committee. It seems well focused, with no lengthy speeches or unnecessary or irrelevant comments. It is not for me to comment on the merits of the Bill, as the Minister knows, but I reaffirm my support for all the hard work put in by the Clerks, Hansard, the security staff and so on. It has facilitated the speedy passage of this Bill.

Bill to be reported, without amendment.

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

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Thursday 3rd March 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Goodwill]

Clause 39 has the effect of removing the need for an operating licence under section 6(1) of the Railways Act 1993 for the HS2 infrastructure or train operator when the line is being tested prior to opening in 2026. The exemption means that the testing of phase 1 of HS2 will have the benefit of the defence against nuisance provided by the 1993 Act. During that period, the railway will not have commercial services and therefore there would be no cost, income, services or passenger elements to regulate.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 39 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 40

Disapplication of statutory closure provisions

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 17, in clause 40, page 15, line 7, after

“discontinuance which the Secretary of State,”

insert “reasonably”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to reach a ‘reasonable’ decision on closures, which could be challenged under this act if not reached reasonably.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 18, in clause 40, page 15, line 8, leave out from “expedient” to “High Speed 2” and insert

“in relation to the Northolt and Acton Line (also known as the Wycombe Single Line).”

This amendment would limit the Secretary of State’s powers to close any line or station and restrict it to the Northolt and Acton Line (also known as the “Wycombe Single Line”).

Amendment 20, in clause 40, page 15, line 10, at end insert—

“(1A) If the Secretary of State makes a direction under subsection (1), he must make a written statement to Parliament within 28 days, setting out his reasons for making such a direction.”

If the Secretary of State makes a direction under subsection (1), this amendment requires the Secretary of State to make a written statement to Parliament within 28 days, setting out the rationale for his decision.

Amendment 19, in clause 40, page 15, line 15, leave out

“sections 29 to 31 (discontinuance of use or operation of stations),”

This amendment would remove the station closure powers in this Clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald]

As drawn, the clause gives the Secretary of State power to disapply the closure provisions of the Railways Act 2005 and enables the Secretary of State to close existing services, stations or parts of the rail network that are necessary or expedient because of the construction or operation of phase 1 of HS2. Amendment 17 would require the Secretary of State to reach a reasonable decision on closures that could be challenged under the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Act if not reached reasonably.

Clause 40 states:

“The Secretary of State may at any time before Phase One of High Speed 2 is ready for commercial use direct that the statutory closure provisions…are not to apply to any discontinuance which the Secretary of State considers necessary or expedient because of…the carrying out…of works”.

Although we understand and accept that it is necessary for the Secretary of State to disapply statutory closure provisions, we are concerned that the powers granted by the Bill as it stands would be too far-reaching and are unnecessary. We are attempting to place some proper and reasonable parameters around the powers that we agree the Secretary of State should have.

When the Minister responded to our concerns in previous clauses about excessive powers granted to the Secretary of State, he explained that the Government have taken a belt-and-braces approach. There seems to be a proliferation of belts and braces. Perhaps it is time to think about getting a better-fitting pair of trousers rather than to keep adding different pieces of apparatus to keep them up.

The HS2 project shares cross-party support. Labour supports the Government’s efforts to pass the legislation necessary for us to start constructing this important and transformative piece of national infrastructure. We do not disagree that, in some instances, it is better to be safe than sorry. However, it is our job as legislators to ensure that unnecessary powers are not granted under the guise of erring on the side of caution, which is the case with clause 40. The disapplication of statutory closure provisions means the closure of existing services, stations or parts of the rail network right up until the Secretary of State has informed Parliament that phase 1 is ready for general use. The clause exceeds the belt-and-braces approach so we have tabled a series of amendments that would particularise the limit of the powers granted to the Secretary of State and increase accountability and transparency.

Amendment 17 would introduce the familiar concept of the Secretary of State having to reach a reasonable decision on closures that could be challenged under the Act if not reached reasonably. It demands a short examination of what constitutes reasonableness, to which lawyers have given a great deal of attention over the years. I will submit that it is not a daunting concept, nor one that should in any way trouble the Minister. Our legal system has defined reasonableness, quite sensibly, as,

“Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances”.

In making that assessment, the judgment of a reasonable person has to be applied.

We are in Clapham omnibus territory. To reject the notion of reasonableness would be to imply that the way was clear for the Secretary of State to behave unreasonably. We would not wish to see our Government Ministers behaving unreasonably—perish the thought. Let us consider “the man on the Clapham omnibus”, or London bus route 88, to be more precise. Given the progress we have made since 1871, when that phrase is thought first to have been coined, we should be describing this hypothetical individual as “the person on the Clapham omnibus”—or better still, “the reasonable person travelling on HS2 from London to Birmingham”. In any event, the judgment of the reasonable individual was originally described as being the judgment of

“a reasonably educated and intelligent but nondescript person”,

against which a decision could be measured.

Reasonableness is an important measure for introducing some transparent objectivity into the decision-making process. When significant and wide-ranging statutory powers are created, it is important to ensure that there are proper checks and balances. It is an important principle in our legal system, and was considered again quite recently in paragraphs 1 to 4 of the UK Supreme Court judgment on the case of Healthcare at Home Ltd v. Common Services Agency [2014] UKSC 49.

The concept of reasonableness as a prerequisite for decision making is well embedded in many legal jurisdictions, notably in Canada. It is also described, with some local adaptations, in Australia, where in New South Wales the Clapham omnibus traveller has been replaced by “the man on the Bondi tram”, a now disused route in Sydney. One can only hope that the Bondi man’s judgment was applied in deciding whether it was reasonable or otherwise to close the Bondi tram route. In Melbourne, Victoria state, it is the person on the Bourke Street tram whose judgment is applied. We can only hope that that tram service is still running. In Hong Kong, the equivalent expression is “the man on the Shaukiwan tram”, although I think I might be running out of track now.

By introducing the word “reasonably”, we merely wish to ensure that, on any objective assessment, the decision to close a service, line or station can be readily identified as having been reached properly and reasonably on the basis of all the information that the Secretary of State has in his or her possession at the time. The amendment to insert the concept of reasonableness is the model of reasonableness itself, and I trust that it can command the support of the Committee.

Amendment 18 relates to a specific issue concerning a particular line. It would limit the Secretary of State’s blanket power to close any line or station by restricting the power to the Northolt and Acton line, which is also known as the Wycombe single line. The way the amendment would work speaks for itself. HS2 Ltd’s information paper B6 states:

“The only line that would close is the eastern end of the Northolt and Acton Line…between Old Oak Common and Park Royal.”

As there are no plans to close other lines, the onus is on the Minister to justify the Secretary of State receiving that broadest-ranging blanket power, if he does not support the amendment to limit the power to the specific plan to close the Wycombe single line. In short, that is the one we know about—the only closure being contemplated —so why not say so and limit the power?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

As I say, we are not proposing that. There would certainly be wide consultation. In this theoretical case that we cannot actually identify, there would need to be provision for the passengers who used that station. Indeed, if there were plans to build a new station, of course that would mean closing the old station that it was to replace.

As I have said, the provision is purely another example of braces and belt, in case we should find ourselves in the unexpected situation of needing to close additional lines or a station. The clause would allow us to do that, but I have not heard even a hint that we might need to close stations. Indeed, HS2 is about increasing capacity on the line, and people’s opportunity to travel. That is why it has been welcomed across the political divides in the House.

I hope that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough will withdraw his amendment and accept at face value my assurances—“reasonably” is my middle name, for goodness’ sake—that we certainly do not have a hidden agenda that the clause is intended to facilitate.

[Andy McDonald]

I would not suggest any hidden agenda at all. If “reasonable” is the Minister’s middle name, why not put something in the Bill? To suggest that doubt might be cast on the ability to construct HS2 is something of a stretch. Surely we should all behave reasonably. To reject the amendment is to leave the way open to do otherwise.

I am not particularly persuaded by the argument about a need for flexibility, when no closures have been identified. The Bill has been pored over in minute detail. The plans are extraordinarily well known. A suggestion by the Minister that as construction develops something might be unearthed that would demand the closure of a station would send shockwaves around the communities along the lines. He has mentioned the very line that has been identified—the Wycombe single; and that is good. What I am driving at is that we should be specific about the closure plans.

I hear what the Minister says, and that he has requested me to withdraw the amendment, but in the first instance the insertion of the word “reasonable” is eminently reasonable. I see no reason to withdraw that.

[Mr Goodwill]

The point I was trying to make was that the specific use of the word “reasonable” in the clause might throw doubt on the reasonableness of other areas where we have not used that word. I stress that this Government will behave reasonably at all times; that reasonableness contributed to a large degree to the electoral success we had last year. We are always reasonable in all things.

[Andy McDonald]

I am grateful to the Minister for that, but putting this requirement in the Bill would leave the matter in absolutely and utterly no doubt, and it would put in that check and balance to ensure that is possible to have an objective examination of the decision to close. Without it, the Secretary of State is beyond criticism and incapable of being held to account. It is a basic principle of English law that Ministers in these circumstances should behave with all reasonableness.

That is why I indicate now, Mr Hanson, that I wish to see amendment 17 put to a vote; if you wish me to continue with my approach towards the rest of the amendments, I will. It has been very clearly established that the current intentions only extend to the Wycombe single line and I am content with what the Minister has had to say about that. So it is not my intention to trouble the Committee any further with amendment 18.

I turn to amendment 20. A simple requirement to make a written statement to Parliament following the making of such a decision is hardly an onerous provision and I would expect the Government to make such a statement in any event, but putting the requirement in the Bill would leave absolutely no doubt about it.

[Mr Goodwill]

There is no shortage of parliamentary procedures that could be used, including urgent questions, Opposition day debates and all the other tools in the toolkit of an MP to raise issues in Parliament. So, although I understand the points that the hon. Gentleman is making, I do not think that we need to include this measure in the Bill.

[Andy McDonald]

I am grateful to the Minister for that. I have only been here a very short time—three years or just a bit more—but there have been so many occasions when I have gone back to my constituency on a Friday night and seen an announcement made that has snuck out when we are not here, or that has been made during a recess. I am very much aware of the parliamentary procedures available to us all to seek an urgent question, or hopefully the Minister would come along and make a statement, but this amendment would leave it in absolutely no doubt that there was a formal, statutory requirement for a Minister to come along and make a statement when any of these plans were being contemplated, and that would put it in the Bill and give it a degree of certainty that otherwise would not exist.

For those reasons, I would like us to have a vote on this particular amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

I shall be brief. Clause 41 relates to other railway legislation, etc. It introduces schedule 28, which sets out the application of general legislation relating to railways to phase 1 of HS2. That includes certain disapplications and incorporations.

For example, paragraph 1 of schedule 28 disapplies the Highway (Railway Crossings) Act 1839, which requires the railroad provider to maintain gates at each end of the crossing and employ a person to open and close said gates. That, of course, is not required today.

Conversely, schedule 28 incorporates provision that makes it an offence for a person to obstruct the lawful construction of the authorised works. All of those are to ensure that the HS2 railway can be constructed, maintained and operated effectively.

In some instances, modifications have been made to reflect modern times, such as increasing the maximum fine for trespass under the Railway Regulation Act 1840 in its application to phase 1 of HS2. I could go on to talk about the restriction of diesel locomotives at the North Pole depot but I will spare the Committee that particular interesting detail.

[Andy McDonald]

I was looking forward to hearing about the diesels at the North Pole depot; I feel cheated. I was a little surprised when I first saw that the schedule referred to the application of other railway legislation, etc., but it would be churlish of me to say that shows a lack of precision, because it is perfectly clearly set out what the “etc.” is all about.

I would like the Minister to consider this point. He has highlighted that with HS2 there will not be roadworks and barriers; it is a continuous route. Will he comment on the issue of safety and trespass around the HS2 line? It is markedly different from a conventional line. What specific measures have been introduced? It is clearly an offence to trespass upon a railway. Are there any additional provisions specific to HS2 that we should consider?

[Mr Goodwill]

I am happy to comment on that. Safety on the railway is of vital importance, not just for those who travel on the railway but for those in proximity to the lines. One real issue that affects our rail network in this country is suicide. Network Rail, on the existing classic network, and I am sure HS2 will be aware of what we can do to try to detract from that—for example, to ensure that crossings over the railway are not easy to use in that regard.

The line will be secure, unlike some of the traditional network. There will be no level crossings or points crossings on the railway. We will be using flyovers, so the trains will not need to slow down to use points. However, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we need to ensure that safety is paramount. One has only to look at HS1 or, indeed, infrastructure around the world to see that high-speed railways are very safe railways and it is very difficult for members of the public to gain access. Modern railway regulations specify safety standards in great detail, and we will of course comply with all those regulations.

I hope that allays the hon. Gentleman’s fears, but he is absolutely right: safety is paramount. Having seen some of the issues on our rail network in the past, I am delighted that there will be state-of-the-art rolling stock and state-of-the-art signalling systems. The training that will be available to staff will be second to none and, indeed, the British Transport police will be receiving training in operations on this part of the line, as they already do in delivering such a fantastic service.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 41 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 28 agreed to.

Clause 42

Co-operation

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

[Mr Goodwill]

The clause refers to co-operation. That is a wonderful word and, given the political consensus across Parliament, it would be a very good word to describe how we are making progress on this great project, which will benefit the whole country.

Clause 42 enables the nominated undertaker to require other railway facility operators to enter into agreements to support the expeditious delivery of phase 1 of HS2. Similarly, the controller of a railway asset may require the nominated undertaker to enter into such an agreement. In default of agreement between the parties, the terms of such an agreement will be determined by arbitration under schedule 29, which is introduced by subsection (4). The arbitration process is outlined in schedule 29 and is in addition to the arbitration process outlined in clause 63. However, this does not apply to any matters of agreement that are within the remit of the ORR. This arbitration process is to determine agreements that govern relationships between railway operators where particular policy issues apply.

[Andy McDonald]

The Minister said earlier that reasonableness was his middle name—well, co-operation is mine.

[The Chair]

Following that enlightening discussion, we move to the Question that clause 42 stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 42 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 29 agreed to.

Clause 43

Transfer of functions relating to works

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald]

We are talking about Bill Powers, not the left half for Aston Villa in 1956—no, he does not exist—but the powers contained within the Bill. My singular concern is about the wording of subsection (1)(a), which says:

“The Secretary of State may by order…appoint a person specified in the order as the nominated undertaker for such purposes of such provisions of this Act as may be so specified”.

The Minister made clear in his opening remarks—but I want to impress this on him—that this is about building HS2 and nothing more. By trying to extend the remit of the clause, we could give the nominated undertaker carte blanche in terms of all the powers in the Bill. It is probably not the Minister’s intention that the powers be limited during the building of phases 1 and 2. I have a slight anxiety that, if read in another way, those powers would extend beyond building to compulsory purchase and acquisition, development and even the closure of stations, which we discussed a few moments ago. Will the Minister help me with that now, or should we return to it at a later date so that he can look into it? I have a slight anxiety that the phraseology is far too wide.

[Mr Goodwill]

If I may reassure the hon. Gentleman, as I said in my opening remarks, the clause is about undertakers to build phase 1 of HS2. It is not about the operation of the railway. Later, we may have an opportunity to discuss the way the operation of the railway may be delivered, but it is early days to rush those fences. In this case, we expect spades in the ground next year and, therefore, the nominated undertakers will be those charged with the delivery of the railway. There will be a number of works, not only the basic construction. A lot of the environmental works could well be given to other undertakers in some cases. At the moment, HS2 Ltd will be the main delivery body and that should be made clear.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 44 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 45

Transfer Schemes

[Andy McDonald]

I beg to move amendment 21, in clause 45, page 17, line 33, at end insert—

“(2) If property or rights are transferred from HS2 Limited or a wholly-owned subsidiary of HS2 Ltd to any body that is not a public body as defined by section 25(1) of the 1993 Railways Act, a fee must be received which reflects a fair market evaluation of that property or right.”

Clause 45 allows the Secretary of State to transfer HS2 Ltd’s property and rights to any other body. This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from transferring assets to a private body without receiving a fair price.

Clause 45 is critically important and will undoubtedly be a matter of some contention between the Front Benchers. I want to explore it in some detail. Although we will have an interesting discussion about how railways ought to be owned and operated when we discuss new clause 21, the amendment is unashamedly hewn from the same wood. There is a huge amount of consensus on the need for the construction of HS2, but the issue of whether the railway service—its infrastructure and its operation—should be owned by the British public and run as a publicly owned operation represents clear blue, or red, water between the Government and Her Majesty’s Opposition. We will return to that fundamental issue in due course.

The amendment speaks to the concerns that property or rights that are transferred from HS2 Ltd, or a wholly owned subsidiary of HS2 Ltd, to any body that is not a public body might not be in return for a fee that is a fair market evaluation. The Railways Act 1993 sets out which those bodies are in clear detail: a Minister of the Crown, a Department or any “other emanation” of the state, a local authority, the Greater London Authority, Transport for London, any metropolitan county passenger transport authority, any body whose members are appointed by a Minister of the Crown, and so on.

I will make myself abundantly clear: we in the Opposition do not want any of the considerable publicly funded investment finding its way into private hands. We are vehemently opposed to any break-up and/or privatisation of our railway infrastructure and we fear that the power in the clause may be used, in part, in pursuit of that objective. The public will have paid a handsome price for HS2 and they should not have it or any part of it taken from under them at a knock-down price.

[Sir Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)]

I understand the point the hon. Gentleman is making. So we can understand the extent, will he tell us how much the public will have paid, or will pay?

[Andy McDonald]

Yes. By the time the process is concluded, we are talking somewhere in the region of £55 billion. I hope that answers the right hon. Gentleman’s question—

[Sir Simon Burns]

indicated assent.

[Andy McDonald]

I can see that the right hon. Gentleman is content.

The amendment is about working in the best interests of taxpayers and to ensure that they are not sold short. The taxpayer is our concern, not the private entity that might have transferred to it property and/or property rights which of themselves had been the product of the taxpayer’s significant investment—the sum of £55 billion, or thereabouts. Calls upon the nation’s tax receipts are onerous and to be used wisely, so it is essential that we ensure that those moneys that have created such valuable assets—money that could have served other urgent and serious demands in our communities—are not simply siphoned off into the private sector.

Our concerns are not idle ones, but are extremely well founded. We are dealing with a potential asset sale as I speak, namely the announcement by Network Rail of its intention to sell some 18 railway stations on the existing network. It is of immense concern that, should any such sales go ahead, the receipts will be those of a fair market valuation and not simply from a fire sale to reduce Network Rail’s debts. In advance of the Nicola Shaw review, we hear that Network Rail is to sell off 18 major stations, including Waterloo, Reading and Leeds, in an effort to cut its £50 billion debt. If memory serves me right, Reading has benefited from public investment of some £897 million. I am sure that the public will be watching carefully what happens to the ownerships of those and other named stations.

The same concerns apply to HS2. I am afraid that the Government have form and that we have less than good experience, to say the least, of sell-offs of publicly owned assets that failed to secure fair or market value for the taxpayer. We need cast our minds back no further than the disastrous sell-off of the Royal Mail, which is still fresh in the minds of millions of voters. The Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills found that taxpayers may have lost out on about £l billion from the undervaluing of Royal Mail. Apparently, the Government feared failure and acted on bad advice over the Royal Mail stock market flotation. As we know, the shares fluctuated widely with an initial price of 330p which jumped as high as 618p and now stands somewhat lower than that. The then Business Secretary, Vince Cable, said:

“They”—

presumably meaning the BIS Committee—

“now have the benefit of hindsight, which we didn’t have at the time. We sold at a price that was regarded as the best that could be achieved in the context in which we sold it.”

But the Chair of the BIS Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey), said:

“It’s very important that when the government does sell off a government asset, it does so through a process that quite clearly demonstrates that nobody selling it, nobody advising it, has a conflict of interest”.

We do not want a repeat of the conduct of the likes of Lazards who were working on the inside on the sale of Royal Mail as Government advisers and then, because of the erection of an invisible virtual Chinese wall, were able to fill their boots on the acquisition of Royal Mail shares from the profits they achieved in a few short hours after launch. A number of individuals, some with high-profile political associations, also personally cashed in. We simply do not want HS2 to be turned into a profiteering exercise at the public’s expense.

You will recall the evidence unearthed by the Public Accounts Committee under the expert chairing of my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge). It revealed that Lazards advised the Government not to increase the price of Royal Mail shares, despite widespread fears they were hugely undervalued, and made a profit of more than £8 million by immediately selling the company’s stock. My right hon. Friend the Member for Barking said that Lazards

“made a killing at the expense of the ordinary taxpayer that lost £750 million in one day”.

A subsequent report by the National Audit Office found that the Government decided against increasing the flotation price of Royal Mail beyond 330p a share because of warnings from Lazard & Co. Government advisers were asked point blank at the Committee chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking how they could get it so wrong that it cost the taxpayer £750 million on that one day.

Vince Cable, the then Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, said that the postal service should,

“start its new life with a core of high-quality investors who would be there in good times and bad”.

So much for that hope, Mr Hanson. As you and I both know, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[Mr Anderson]

Will my hon. Friend also recall the fact that it is not only the Royal Mail? The coal industry was privatised in 1994. One of the arguments for privatisation was that it would transfer the risks from the public sector to the private sector. We had the situation where a company was importing coal from places like Colombia, which uses child and slave labour to dig coal out of the ground. The Government presided over the closure of the last deep mine colliery in Kellingley at the end of 2015, but the people who bought the coal industry have used assets in land and estates which have multiplied massively from what was paid for them in 1994.

[Andy McDonald]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. It is absolutely imperative that we learn lessons from previous experiences, and that is what the amendment is intended to address. We do not want to keep repeating these errors and finding the taxpayer short-changed. Certainly, when there is something so prestigious and ambitious and it has widespread support, we do not want its reputation tarnished in any way. We want it to be sustained.

[Ben Howlett (Bath) (Con)]

The hon. Member for Blaydon just raised the issue of land prices. Obviously, land prices are increasing. Even if it meant more money would be raised for UK taxpayers, would the hon. Member for Middlesbrough still disagree with the clause?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald]

Perhaps I have not made myself clear. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure a fair market price. We are trying to ensure that if the circumstances outlined arise, the process is carried out entirely properly and we are not complaining after the event that we have been badly short-changed. The intention is simply that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very valid and powerful point, but I will come on to deal with the objectivity that he wants to see if such matters ever come to fruition.

We in Parliament clearly have many opportunities to monitor and scrutinise the sales of publicly owned property, but one could be forgiven for questioning whether all our parliamentary devices really produce any proper advance policing of such activity. We appear to be ever-wise only after the event, and the amendment is a modest attempt to address that failing.

It is worth paying some attention to what is meant by a “fair market evaluation”. I note that the international valuation standards define market value as

“the estimated amount for which a property should exchange on the date of valuation between a willing buyer and a willing seller in an arm’s-length transaction after proper marketing, wherein the parties had each acted knowledgeably, prudently, and without compulsion.”

That is immensely helpful, and the international valuation standards give further guidance that market value is a concept distinct from market price, which is the price at which one can transact. Market value is the true underlying value, according to those theoretical standards.

Given the terms of our amendment, we could have a lengthy and interesting debate about what constitutes a fair market evaluation, but the public know only too well, especially given that the Public Accounts Committee pores over deals after the event when it is of course far too late. The bottom line is that the British public know when they have been scammed, and we do not want to be crying foul after a damning PAC report on the sale of HS2 assets in the years ahead.

I am sure that all members of the Committee unequivocally endorse the need to ensure that the taxpayer receives a fair deal should any assets be sold. Given that, I trust that our amendment will have the full endorsement and unanimous support of the Committee. We consider the amendment to be hugely important, so I intend to press it to a vote, although I look forward to hearing that the Minister accepts the reasonable point we are making and our reasonable amendment to secure fair market prices for any assets sold.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

Well, yes, often hindsight is a marvellous thing and markets move in different directions. It has always been the Government’s intention to ensure that we get best value, but also to ensure that share issues are taken up. There is a difficult balance between pitching a price at such a level that the shares are taken up and pitching a price that achieves best value. However, the track record of this Government shows that we have been stalwart custodians of the public purse. We have not wasted money. We have borne down on the deficit. We have got sound money back again in our economy and there is confidence around the world that we are sound managers of public finances. Indeed, in the Budget later this month, we will see more examples of that being delivered to the House.

[Andy McDonald]

Does the Minister not have just a glimmer of concern about my example of how the sale of Royal Mail was conducted? Will he not put some distance between him and his Government and that arrangement whereby a Government adviser, Lazard, was right at the heart of the sale of publicly owned assets and yet at the same time was next door deriving significant profits of immense proportions from that sale? Does he not agree that there is something wrong with such an arrangement? We had scrutiny after that event and we should have such scrutiny before the event with HS2.

[Mr Goodwill]

If I may, I will turn to an example more closely allied to the matter before us today, which is the case of HS1. We sold a 30-year concession on HS1 to operate and maintain the infrastructure for £2.1 billion. The Ontario Teachers’ pension fund took that concession for a 30-year licence. After the 30 years, the HS1 line returns to the Government, and we will have the opportunity to sell another concession; to keep it, possibly within Network Rail; or to give it to another operator such as, as I have said, Network Rail. The sale of the HS1 concession involved a rigorous bidding process to ensure best value. No decisions have been taken on the commercial model for HS2. It should also be noted that if any transfer of assets, rights or liabilities occur, the Secretary of State can impose conditions such as restrictions on the sale of assets, which will protect assets if that is thought appropriate.

We would always seek to get best value in the sale of the concession, and the value of the concession will take into account the value of the assets being transferred as well as the liabilities and revenue, and this would therefore be priced in. I hope that that clarifies the position so that the hon. Gentleman understands the purpose of the amendment, but, given the political differences between us on this issue, I suspect that I will not be able to satisfy him and he will press his amendment to a Division.

[Mr Goodwill]

I will respond briefly to that point. This Government always seek to get best value for the taxpayer. There is an important debate to be had, although maybe not at this stage, about how the railway will be delivered—whether we operate a traditional franchising process, run the line directly for a while to demonstrate its ability to raise revenue for a future operator or let a concession, as we have done with HS1, to allow an investor to come in and benefit from the income from the operator. There are a number of issues that we should consider to ensure that we get best value, but those decisions need to be made at the start of the next decade, so I think we would be rushing our fences to do it now.

Once again, I underline that this Government will always seek to get best value for the taxpayer. The previous coalition Government’s record of doing so was a major contributor to the results we achieved last year in May, when the British people had confidence that a Conservative Government could be a sound custodian of the public finances and come to grips with the economic mess that we inherited in 2010. That is a debate for another day, but I assure the Committee that we will always seek to get best value, and the clause—without the amendment, which is superfluous—will do precisely that.

[Andy McDonald]

The Minister is right to identify this as an area of stark political differences between us, but we have been able to discuss it civilly, recognising that we have distinct positions. I will try not to go into the whole business of what happened at the last election, but we lost 900 votes across 12 seats; I do not think the Conservatives should be crowing too much about that. Be that as it may—

[The Chair]

Order. With all due respect, that is not in the amendment either. We should stick to the amendment.

[Andy McDonald]

I am grateful, Mr Hanson, and suitably chastised.

[The Chair]

It was to both of you that I said it, actually.

[Andy McDonald]

We are debating the potential privatisation of an asset in the public hands, and that is what the amendment tries to address. It would be remiss of me to fail to comment that the Minister may be misreading the mood about how the public perceive the ownership of such assets, both going forward and in relation to some privatisations that occurred in the past. I do not think it is quite the rosy picture that he paints.

My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon makes a key point. We have heard at length from the Minister that his Government, and his party in coalition, were assiduous—that is effectively his claim—about achieving a fair market valuation of assets sold. He says not only that that happened, but that it will happen in future for sales such as may be contemplated under the clause. If that is the position, why on earth would he not send that message out to the nation, which has a long memory about Royal Mail? The Government would be acknowledging, “We can do better, and we will reflect that in the Bill, so that we give an unerring, unequivocal commitment that that is what has happened. It is simply not good enough to say, “That is what we do anyway.” Say so, make it clear, so that nobody is any doubt that there is no other purpose intended.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

indicated dissent.

[Andy McDonald]

The Minister is shaking his head, which disappoints me gravely. I suggest, Mr Hanson, that we put the matter to a vote so that the Committee can make a decision. I am sure that hon. Members on the Government Benches have listened carefully and will express themselves in an independent fashion.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

Clause 46 deals with extension of planning permission for statutory undertakers and introduces schedule 31, which provides for the extension of planning permission to the statutory undertakers.

Paragraph 1 of schedule 31 disapplies certain limitations of permitted development rights for statutory undertakers, therefore allowing them to use the planning permission granted by the General Permitted Development Order 2015 for works that form part of or are in connection with HS2.

Paragraph 2 of the schedule sets out the condition that the works that are carried out are in accordance with any undertaking given by the Secretary of State to the Select Committee of either House during the Bill process, which includes the commitments given through the controls of the environmental minimum requirements.

I should explain that the certain works carried out by the statutory undertakers referred to are generally the required utility diversions.

[Andy McDonald]

The Minister referred to schedule 31(2), which sets out the condition that the works be carried out in accordance with any undertaking given by the Secretary of State to a Select Committee of either House. We have been through that process. Can the Minister provide some information about the undertakings that have been given to help Opposition Members understand what the provision encompasses? I am not aware of the nature of any such undertakings.

[Mr Goodwill]

A number of additional provisions have come before the House, many of which are diversions of utilities and are the result of petitions or concerns raised with HS2 Ltd as part of that process. In every case I can think of, the diversions are intended to facilitate and help the landowners or the owners of the infrastructure. We can probably provide several dozen examples of where that has been done in response to the sensible concerns that people have raised.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 46 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 31 agreed to.

Clause 47

Protective provisions

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

Thank you, Mr Hanson. You are absolutely right to call me to order.

Clause 47 concerns protective provisions and introduces schedule 32, which contains provisions protecting the interests of statutory undertakers and other bodies that may be affected by other provisions of the Bill. These provisions are similar to those in the Crossrail Act 2008 and the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996. The protective provisions of the schedule cover highways and traffic; electricity, gas, water and sewerage undertakers; electronic communications code networks; the Canal and River Trust; and land drainage, flood defence, water resources and fisheries. I commend the clause and the associated schedule to the Committee.

[Andy McDonald]

I am grateful to the Minister for that helpful explanation. We are talking about nominated undertakers and statutory undertakers—there is a lot of undertaking going on. Does the Minister envisage that there will be better co-ordination between the nominated undertaker and the statutory undertaker? Members across the House will be besieged with complaints about the myriad works by a succession of statutory undertakers in their own territory. What I am saying in words of one syllable is that the works involving statutory undertakers will be better co-ordinated if they are done in one go. That is better than multiple moving activities and many holes being dug.

[Mr Goodwill]

Much of the work that will be carried out in the construction of this railway will be on the land we have acquired, and therefore will not affect those going about their everyday lives. However, from time to time work will need to be done on highways or other rights of way that could disrupt their lawful use. I know that, in those cases, HS2 Ltd is determined to minimise the disruption. Indeed, we are already working with local authorities to ensure we can deliver these changes sympathetically, as we are doing for lorry movements and the other potential disruptions to which this project will unfortunately give rise.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 47 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 32 agreed to.

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

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

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Thursday 3rd March 2016 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

That hour for lunch was all too brief, but I managed to meet Holywell High School from north Wales—just to get them on the record.

Clause 48

Compulsory acquisition of land for regeneration or relocation

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 22, in clause 48, page 18, line 8, after

“if the Secretary of State,”

insert “reasonably”.

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to reach a “reasonable” decision when deciding whether to exercise his power to acquire sites for regeneration purposes, and would allow the decision to be challenged under this act if not reached reasonably.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 24, in clause 48, page 18, line 10, after “any land” insert—

“within the Act limits or in the vicinity of any station or depot the construction of which is authorised by the Act”.

This amendment would limit the Secretary of State’s power to compulsorily acquire land for regeneration purposes to land within the Act limits or in the vicinity of any station or depot, the construction of which is authorised by this Act.

Amendment 25, in clause 48, page 18, line 11, at end insert—

“(1A) Before acquiring land compulsorily under subsection (1) the Secretary of State, following consultation with the relevant local authority, must be satisfied that—

(a) the regeneration or development accords with the relevant development plan; and

(b) that there is no realistic prospect of the local authority exercising powers of compulsory purchase of the land within a reasonable time.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to be satisfied that any compulsory land acquisition for land regeneration accords with the relevant development plan and that there is no realistic prospect of the local authority exercising powers of compulsory purchase of the land.

Amendment 23, in clause 48, page 18, line 11, at end insert—

“(1A) The Secretary of State must define the term ‘an opportunity for regeneration or development’ in regulations for the purposes of subsection (1).

(1B) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (1A) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”

This amendment would require the Government to define the term “an opportunity for regeneration or development” by statutory instrument.

--- Later in debate ---

[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 ---

[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.

[Andy McDonald]

The point is that the man with the red flag was there to slow down the train because it was not known what impact the speeds would have had on the human form. If we do not get rid of the Pacers quickly, I think that man might have a job again. We need to move on.

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

We will keep the red flag flying.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope that, having heard the points I have made, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough will withdraw his amendment and not press the others to a Division. What the Government are proposing is reasonable to all, whether they are on a Boris Routemaster or even an Enviro400 produced by those wonderful people, Alexander Dennis, in my constituency.

[Andy McDonald]

I may have misunderstood, Mr Hanson. I thought that we were paying our attention exclusively to amendment 22. I realise that the Minister has spoken to others as well.

[The Chair]

I said that the other amendments were grouped with amendment 22. The hon. Gentleman may speak to all amendments and vote on them individually.

[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]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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. 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.)

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

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 1st March 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

It is a huge honour to appear for the first time as a Committee Front-Bench spokesperson, and to do so under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I will be guided by your wisdom and expertise as we proceed.

I thank the Minister for his courtesy and civility in the run-up to the Committee. It bordered on the comradely, but perhaps that stretches a point. I would also like to acknowledge the sterling work of members of the Select Committee. The Minister spoke about the number of petitions and the work that those Members undertook. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friends the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) and the Member for Bolton North East (Mr Crausby). Both constituencies surrendered their Members for a considerable time, as did Preston to the north-west. My hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr Hendrick) did particularly well. I was regularly reminded of the considerable work undertaken by my good friend the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), who never let an opportunity pass to tell me about the work he was doing. I thank the Clerks for their advice and guidance throughout my preparation.

I support clause 1, but I should like to make some preliminary observations and comments and raise some specific questions. I am mindful of the schedule we have set ourselves and I am confident that we will be able to adhere to it. There may be a number of clauses which deal with technical matters and will not trouble the Committee, but I crave its modest indulgence in making some introductory remarks on clause 1.

The Opposition welcome the Bill and are very supportive of it. However, our support is given on the strict basis and understanding that, at every turn, the HS2 project must produce the best possible outcomes for our country and value for money for the taxpayer. The project was amended and improved during preparations on the Bill and we would like to achieve further improvements through our amendments.

Happily, the Bill has broad cross-party support, and as an undertaking, HS2 will be truly transformational for our country, not only in terms of the speed and connectivity between London and Birmingham in the first instance, but onwards with phase 2 through to Crewe and Manchester and the entire north-west, with connectivity dividends up into Scotland. The same positivity applies to the transformational effects of the expansion from Birmingham through to the east midlands and Sheffield and Leeds, with greater connectivity for the north-east beyond Leeds from bimodal trains reuniting with the east coast conventional mainline and onwards up to Edinburgh.

HS2 is not simply about connectivity and the speed of connectivity. It has been said time and time again that the principal pay-off is increased capacity. There is agreement across the House that our Victorian rail infrastructure, remarkable as it is, simply cannot cope with the incredible increases we have seen, and continue to see, in the number of passenger journeys in the UK. It is in addressing capacity demands that HS2 comes into its own.

By virtue of the availability of HS2 services, the capacity relief to the conventional lines will be considerable, but it is widely recognised that improvements and investments in our conventional lines on the one hand, and in HS2 on the other, do not present an either/or choice. Indeed, as HS2 progresses towards construction, it is equally essential that much-needed investment in our conventional lines—greater electrification and other improvements right across the network—cracks on apace.

Investment in HS2 will not only address issues of capacity and the speed of journeys. The engineering, construction, employment and career opportunities that HS2 represents are colossal and provide immense opportunities for the companies and their skilled workforces and the talent pool that has developed through Crossrail. That can continue and grow, from Crossrail to HS2 phase 1 and beyond.

A great number of people will be able to look back on entire careers spent engaged in high-speed rail construction. HS2 is a wonderful opportunity for our country fully to demonstrate its capabilities. It is essential that we derive the maximum social value from this project for skills, employment and prosperity, not only in the long-term infrastructure dividends that will undoubtedly result from greater and more efficient interconnectivity between our great towns and cities, but from the construction of the infrastructure itself.

The Opposition wholly endorse and acknowledge the need to achieve a greater rebalancing of our economy, which includes the emphasis, while never neglecting London, as if we ever could or should, on growing our economy outside London and ensuring that we realise the full potential of all our country, including the terrific power and energy of the midlands, the north and beyond. The Leader of the Opposition has previously said that our aim is to

“stimulate the economy by increasing investment in new high-speed rail, creating jobs and connecting more towns and cities.”

While the tracks of HS2 are geographically defined and restricted as to where they go, the benefits of HS2 have no such limitations. Workers and companies across the UK will benefit from the opportunity to bid for and secure valuable contracts, and those companies will derive huge benefits for themselves and their workforces from Land’s End to John O’Groats. Indeed, I was immensely impressed at the turnout of companies in my own region in Darlington in Tees Valley a few weeks ago, and I was delighted to see such an appetite for the opportunities that HS2 presented.

While there is considerable agreement about this undertaking across the House, it is imperative that we all consider the matter with great care and consideration. The responsibility for progressing such a huge undertaking is an onerous one, and it is our duty as Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition to scrutinise this Bill properly with the utmost seriousness. For those reasons, we take the view that the voices of concern and objection should continue to be given every consideration. There are undoubtedly great concerns about the environmental damage and disruption often necessarily and unavoidably caused in places of natural beauty such as the Chilterns, and we will wish to ensure that such concerns are properly and fully considered.

Although the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) has raised many concerns on behalf of her constituents and various campaign groups, it appears to me that those concerns have largely been addressed by the excellent Select Committee, as evidenced in its report and the amendments that have followed in terms of additional powers and supplementary environmental statements. I note specifically that some 60% of the rail route through the Chilterns will now be by way of tunnelling as opposed to surface track. That said, perhaps the Minister might further comment on the extent to which the concerns expressed about the Chilterns have been addressed.

Perhaps the Minister will also apply his mind to the concerns raised by the Select Committee. On page 42 of its report it noted:

“Chilterns petitioners were concerned about several hydrogeological issues.”

Those issues are listed: I will not read them out, save to say that they concern Wendover and the Misbourne, among others. The Committee requested that the promoter

“address the matter of hydrogeological surveying as a priority.”

Perhaps the Minister will comment on the current status.

Similarly, the concerns raised by the residents of Camden in London and their local authority, Camden Borough Council, about the extensive and long-term major disruption that will be caused by the major reconfiguration of Euston station are extremely serious. In our sittings, I will test the Government on how they have responded and on what modifications they can make to ameliorate the legitimate concerns of a community that will be subjected to major disruption at its heart for many years. This is a once in a lifetime—perhaps several lifetimes—opportunity to build something of real worth and value at Euston and to leave a legacy, in architectural and community terms, of which we can be proud. We wish to explore that issue in detail during our proceedings.

In January 2009, the Labour Government established High Speed 2 Ltd to examine the case for a new high-speed line and to identify a route between London and the west midlands. Our ambition was always that the line could be extended to reach Scotland. In our view, that ambition must be sustained. There have been innumerable consultations and revisions of the plan, and on 11 March 2010 the HS2 report and supporting studies were published, together with the Government’s Command Paper on high-speed rail. Government and Opposition parties have grappled with the interconnectivity with HS1 and will no doubt continue to do so, as we will with the intended linkage with Crossrail 2, especially at Euston, in the years ahead.

It would be remiss of me not to acknowledge the considerable trade union support for HS2. There are people in the trade unions who think that HS2 does not go far enough, but if phase 1 is concluded on time and on budget, it will give us the confidence to look at other high-speed services in future.

We need detailed scrutiny to ameliorate the impact on communities, both urban and rural, of this incredibly ambitious undertaking. The project and the Bill have the Opposition’s support, but perhaps the Minister will be kind enough to answer my questions.

[Mr Goodwill]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his tone and the constructive way in which the Opposition are approaching this matter. As he says, this project was conceived under the Labour Government, and hopefully it will be delivered under a Conservative Government. The issues that he raised are at the forefront of our concerns. The Opposition wish to secure good value for money, and the Government share that view. Indeed, the UK is getting a reputation for delivering projects on time and on budget. We need look only at the Olympics, and Crossrail—or the Elizabeth line, as I am proud to say it will now be called—which is being delivered so efficiently.

The hon. Gentleman is right to stress the importance of increasing capacity on our country’s railways. Perhaps we made a mistake in calling the project High Speed 2, because that focused attention on the speed at which the trains will travel. Indeed, if we are going to build a new railway line, we might as well build one to 21st-century standards, rather than another piece of Victorian infrastructure. The success of the railway industry since privatisation has resulted in a more than doubling of the number of passengers using our network from 750 million journeys per year to more than 1.6 billion. We are particularly aware that we need to continue to invest in the conventional network. Indeed, £44 billion has been allocated to upgrade the conventional line. Unfortunately, many passengers will suffer disruption at Easter because of the works that will be carried out over that period, in the same way as much of the work was carried out at Christmas.

We understand the importance of electrification, which will not just enable us to use the very best rolling stock, but will make our railways more sustainable. Were we not in an atmosphere of cross-party collaboration, I would mention how little electrification the previous Labour Government delivered, compared with this Government. I will gloss over that very quickly.

[Andy McDonald]

Before the Minister glosses over that too quickly, perhaps he would reflect on the fact that we inherited the disaster that was Railtrack. I would caution him against further journeys into the privatisation and break-up of our national rail infrastructure, because we might have to have those discussions about the terrible health and safety record all over again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

Thank you. I will not be drawn on that, Mr Hanson. I am sure the history books are being written as we speak. The hon. Gentleman is right to refer to the opportunities for jobs, apprenticeships and career development associated with the project. Indeed, many of the skills that have been developed on Crossrail, not least the tunnelling skills, will be very applicable to HS2.

The Government are in the process of setting up—indeed planning permission has been given—the HS2 college in Birmingham, with a satellite college in Doncaster, which has a long tradition of engineering excellence as the home of Sir Nigel Gresley, the Mallard and the Flying Scotsman, which has been so much in the news recently.

This is a long-term project and Lord Adonis was in at the start. Over the period of delivery, we might even have a situation in which the Opposition look slightly electable, so it is important that we continue to work with them. I have been working very closely with the leaders of the great cities of the north, those Labour Mayors and council leaders who understand the importance of HS2 for the north.

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough is right to address the sustainability of the delivery of the project. I am proud that we have made it clear that this project will be delivered with no net environmental loss. The hon. Gentleman has already referred to the extensive tunnelling in the Chilterns. We also set up a community fund to allow projects in communities affected, and many of those will be environmental projects. I am also determined that the opportunities afforded by the land we are procuring are used to the full to increase cycling and walking along the route.

The hon. Gentleman specifically raised the issue of hydrogeology, which is something that our engineers are very concerned to address. A number of water courses will be bisected and a number of drainage issues that farmers have been concerned about will be addressed. HS1, currently our only high-speed line, has been shown to be particularly resilient against flooding. The flooding in the south-east two years ago caused widespread disruption to the conventional rail network, but HS1 was resilient and the drainage issues were addressed.

I understand the issue the hon. Gentleman raised about Camden. It is a densely populated part of London, and we will be delivering one of the biggest projects at Euston, including a massive upgrade to the underground station, which will benefit people in that area. Businesses may be concerned about how they will be affected, and I had lunch with the former right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras, Frank Dobson, in one of the restaurants in Drummond Street that could be affected by the construction. We made sure to listen to their concerns, particularly how their regular clientele can access the properties while the construction is going on.

We have a tremendous opportunity at Euston. The hon. Gentleman and I were both at a community engagement centre that has been set up for people who have questions about the construction and want to raise concerns about the delivery of the project, to ensure disruption can be minimised as far as possible. At all stages of the project, we will be sure to engage with communities so that they can be aware of likely disruption and we can mitigate it.

We have a tremendous opportunity at Euston to deliver a state-of-the-art railway station, such as the one at King’s Cross, which has been the centre for a genuine revitalisation of that area. I know the Secretary of State is keen to revitalise the Euston arch, the iconic symbol of Euston station, mirrored at the other end of the line in Birmingham with a similar arch. I hope we can build an iconic station that will be a centre for redevelopment in that area.

[Andy McDonald]

I wholeheartedly agree with him about the opportunity that Euston presents for something of great significance and worth. Does he also share my view that it is absolutely imperative that the focus does not shift too far from the needs of the community? As currently presented, Euston station represents something of a wall between communities in Camden. There is the issue of permeability. We talked about cycling and walking, but that must be an integral part of the plans for Euston as it progresses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

Clause 2 concerns further provision about works. It is not exactly a very exciting title, but it authorises the nominated undertaker to carry out any ancillary works that are necessary for the construction and maintenance of phase 1 of HS2, so long as such works remain within the limits as shown on the plans. This could be either railway works or, as stated in subsection (3),

“landscaping and other works to mitigate any adverse effects of the construction”.

Again, this is a standard clause for works Bills. Subsection (4) introduces schedule 2, which contains,

“further and supplementary provision about works”.

This schedule allows certain protective works, such as the preservation of buildings, tree management and so on, to be carried out for works authorised by the Bill. Schedule 2 also describes how the nominated undertaker can access properties along the route to carry out works and provide safeguards for those property owners.

Subsection (5) allows the nominated undertaker to divert the electricity lines identified in schedule 3 and carry out the ancillary works required for these diversions. I am sorry that I could not make it more exciting, but I beg to move that clause 2 stands part of the Bill.

[Andy McDonald]

I simply endorse the comments of the Minister and congratulate him on making something very dull very exciting—I enjoyed what he had to say.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules 2 and 3 agreed to.

Clause 3

Highways

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

[Mr Goodwill]

Clause 3 concerns highways and introduces schedule 4, which allows a nominated undertaker to carry out works to and otherwise affect highways. That includes creating new or improving existing highways, allowing means of access and stopping up roads. I beg to move that clause 3 stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 4 agreed to.

Clause 4

Power to acquire land compulsorily

[Andy McDonald]

I beg to move amendment 10, in clause 4, page 3, line 12, at end insert—

‘(6) When land is acquired under subsection (1), and is not otherwise specifically authorised under this Act, the Secretary of State must lay a report before Parliament setting out the reason for the acquisition before Parliament, and any such report must then also be published on the nominated undertaker’s website within 5 working days.”

If the Secretary of State compulsorily acquires land under subsection (1), and this is not otherwise specifically authorised under this Act, this amendment would require him to lay a report before Parliament setting out the reasons for the acquisition and publish the report on the website of the nominated undertaker within 5 working days.

Clause 4 says:

“The Secretary of State may acquire compulsorily so much of the land within the Act limits as may be required for Phase One purposes.”

We propose an additional paragraph at line 12. Let me draw the Committee’s attention to the wording of sub-section (1), which describes,

“land within the Act limits as may be required for Phase One purposes”,

and to clause 65, which helps us to interpret what phase 1 purposes are. It states:

“References in this Act to anything being done or required for “Phase One purposes” are to the thing being done or required… otherwise for the purposes of or in connection with Phase One of High Speed 2 or any high speed railway transport system of which Phase One of High Speed 2 forms or is to form part.”

By definition, that is a significant and wide-ranging power that is totally outwith the scope of phase 1 works or purposes, given the way that phase 1 purposes are described. I urge caution, because—unless the Minister persuades me otherwise— this is an area where we would be better advised to keep the restriction to phase 1 and not extend it for things that are going to come along in the future. I understand the logic of getting this out of the way now and for ever, but we have just been through an extensive Select Committee process, looking at the lands contained within phase 1 purposes. It is dangerous to introduce a power and authority at this stage that would extend that.

So we accept the need for the Secretary of State to have the power to compulsorily acquire land for the construction of HS2 phase 1, but we have concerns that as it stands the clause would grant the Secretary of State the broadest of powers that would not be subject to satisfactory overview from Parliament and would not be sufficiently transparent. The amendment would not curtail the powers of the Secretary of State that the clause seeks to grant, and would not impede the construction of the railway, but it would require the Secretary of State to lay a report before Parliament setting out the reasons for the acquisition of land under subsection (1), if it was not otherwise specifically authorised under the Act.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald]

Just before the Minister loses the thread of that line of argument, I am particularly concerned with the definition and interpretation at clause 65(c). I know that the Minister is advising us this morning that the works we are talking about are delineated and specified opposite the schedules and the lands within them for phase 1, but by any reasonable interpretation, in my view, if we are now extending that to any high-speed rail transport system, of which phase 1 of High Speed 2 forms part, the necessary conclusion of that is that we are now getting into lands potentially for phase 2a and phase 2b, and we should not be creating a power in a Bill entitled High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill that will ultimately cover lands elsewhere. As the Minister has acknowledged, it is a wide-ranging power. Does he accept the point that it extends it too far?

[The Chair]

Before we continue, for Members’ interest and observation, clause 65(c) will be reached later and while reference can be made to it now, we are dealing with amendment 10 to clause 4 and we should keep our comments to the general issues around that.

[Mr Goodwill]

I reassure the hon. Gentleman that the clause relates only to land within limits and does not create a general power to acquire land. Indeed, as I already mentioned, the land needed for construction and ancillary purposes is already identified in schedules 5, 7, 8, 11, 12 and 16, together with the purpose for which that land is required. I understand why the hon. Gentleman might be concerned that this could be interpreted as giving more general rights, but the actual powers for compulsory purchase are very limited by those schedules. I respectfully suggest that this amendment is essentially an unnecessary duplication of the Bill. I hope that this clarification will reassure the hon. Gentleman so that he can withdraw it.

[Andy McDonald]

I note your words of caution about cross-referring, Mr Hanson. I will limit my comments to saying that I do not think we have heard sufficient reassurance from the Minister that the powers will not be extended to lands and plans that have not been specified at this stage. In the absence of the reassurance I had hoped for, I wish to press the matter to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

Clause 13 relates to the extinction of rights of statutory undertakers; it mirrors much of the previous clause. It applies provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 that provide a process by which any apparatus of a statutory undertaker on such land may be removed and related rights over the land extinguished. Clause 13 is subject to the protective provisions that detail statutory undertakers in schedule 32, which makes provision for the diversion or protection of their apparatus.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14

Exclusion of new rights of way

[Andy McDonald]

I beg to move amendment 11, in clause 14, page 7, line 8, at end insert—

‘(3A) Nothing in this section shall prevent the nominated undertaker, or other owners of railway stations, from establishing any new right of way within or over railway stations that are used for Phase One purposes.”

This amendment would provide that Clause 14 shall not prevent the nominated undertaker or other owners of railway stations from establishing new rights of ways within or over railways stations used for Phase One purposes.

I rise to reassure people that I have not lost the power of speech and to give you something of a rest, Mr Hanson. Clause 14 deals specifically with the exclusions of new rights of way. Our amendment would add new subsection (3A) to the clause. The clause as drawn is accurate and proper, but we simply want to leave a permissive option for new rights of way to be created. The amendment speaks primarily to the issues arising at Euston station and the concerns expressed by Camden Council and a number of local groups and individuals who may be impacted by construction works as the station is developed, but it is also applicable to any other station on the network.

As regular travellers to London, each of us has probably used Euston station at some point, although the Minister and I are more regular users of the sister station at King’s Cross. I hope that the wonderfully ambitious structure at King’s Cross will ultimately be mirrored by something of equal measure at Euston. One thing that would strike you, Mr Hanson, on walking around Euston station is how imposing the station is for the communities on either side of it; it splits the area in half and sits there like a huge obstruction in the community. If planners and developers had a blank sheet of paper, they would not come up with that sort of design today.

HS2 Ltd has been engaged with Camden Council on the issue and there have been a number of assurances, one of which is a commitment to maintaining pedestrian rights of way. When Euston station is redeveloped, a right of way through the station would be desirable. That would prevent the station from obstructing travel for those who live near or wish to pass by, as is presently the case. When redeveloped, it is important that Euston station is as permeable as possible for local residents, whether they are cycling or on foot. I note that in his opening remarks the Minister made a comment about the need to protect and encourage cycling and walking routes as the station is developed. It is important that the station is as permeable as possible, but the Bill, as drafted, might frustrate any such moves. Clause 14 states that:

“No right of way may be acquired by prescription or user over land which—

(a) forms an access or approach to any railway infrastructure.”

Our concern is that the Bill might prevent a right of way being established through Euston station. That is what this amendments seeks to rectify, and not only for Euston, but for everywhere else. It is not just about the prohibition on the creation of rights of way, but more specifically about the ability deliberately to permit the creation of a right of way, where appropriate, that will address the needs of communities such as the ones around Euston. I do not wish to be too unkind, but Euston is not the prettiest or the most access-friendly station for the residents of Camden. They have the station in their midst and suffer the inconveniences caused by its impermeable mass. It is for those reasons that we consider the amendment to be entirely sensible and appropriate. It caters for that very contingency.

The amendment does not presuppose where such rights of way may lie, but one would hope that they would address the permeability issue at Euston and facilitate not only east-west access but north-south access. I stress that the amendment does not dictate where these rights of way should be but, in the context of this clause’s discussion of the exclusion of new rights of way, it provides for the contingency of the nominated undertaker to create new rights of way that would address these issues. I trust that the Minister can follow the sense of this. Having been at Euston himself, he will understand the point I am addressing. I hope that he will accept the amendment.

[Mr Goodwill]

I think that I can allay the hon. Gentleman’s fears. Clause 14 prevents rights of way from being

“acquired by prescription or user over land which…forms an access or approach to any railway infrastructure, and”

which is held for phase 1 of HS2. It is important to understand precisely what the term “acquired by prescription” means. It refers to the legal process of a right of way becoming established through use over a period of at least 20 years. It refers not to a new right of way but to a right of way that has been used in a certain part of the country. The process could be operated if a landowner tried to prevent that land from being used, because it could be argued that the right of way had been firmly established over 20 years. The term “acquired by prescription” does not refer to other types of right of way or access that the operator of the station may allow.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to focus on the tremendous opportunity that the borough of Camden and the area around Euston will have in the development of the station. Indeed, one immediate benefit will be that the new underground station will enable a connection between Euston Square underground station and the main Euston station, which is currently a short walk across the traffic-choked streets of London. That connection will be of immediate benefit to the people of Euston.

On how people can access routes through the station, a number of considerations will need to be taken into account, not least compliance with fares and security, to ensure that people cannot access the railway or get on trains without tickets.

I reassure the hon. Gentleman that the clause does not prevent a railway station owner from allowing the public access over, under or through a station. If a station owner wants to provide an officially designated right of way, they can do so by following the existing process under the Highways Act 1980. Throughout the Bill, we have sought not to legislate where processes already exist, except when necessary for the expeditious delivery of phase 1 of HS2.

I hope that my clarification will reassure the hon. Gentleman that the measure applies to a specific way in which a right of way can be established, which I suspect could be used by those who might want to frustrate the delivery of the railway. It therefore makes a lot of sense to exempt that process from the Bill, so I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.

[Andy McDonald]

I am grateful to the Minister for his assurances, which have gone some way towards satisfying me. If I have interpreted his remarks correctly, he is saying that there is a power elsewhere to grant a right of way and that the amendment is therefore unnecessary, but we have an opportunity here, because the amendment would not detract from that ability. He may say that it would not add to the existing ability, but it would be merely permissive. The amendment would say that new rights of way are possible and—not that we are here to send out messages—make it abundantly clear in the Bill that the significant issue of access and egress for the residents of Camden is within the contemplation of HS2, the Bill’s promoter and everybody else, and that it has been properly thought through.

I am reassured to a large degree, but it is still important to state in the Bill that Euston and other railway stations have the ability to address residents’ concerns about being cut off from each other in the way that I described. Unless the Minister is able to assist me further, I intend to press the amendment to a vote.

[Mr Goodwill]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands that rights of way, bridleways and so on exist in several areas where the railway will be built, and that this is not just about stations. We have done everything in our power to ensure that rights of way are protected. Indeed, there will be expensive infrastructure in many cases to ensure that rights of way are not cut off. We want to go further and use the opportunity presented by the corridor that we are acquiring to connect existing rights of way or create new rights of way, which will be a great facility for local communities. I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman’s point about Euston, and we may need to address that issue, particularly during the construction phase. We are absolutely determined to work with communities to ensure that businesses are not cut off from their customers, because many people who use the station will use businesses in the vicinity.

However, clause 14 refers to a specific process that can be used to establish a right of way. If we did not have this exclusion, my concern is that those who might wish to frustrate the delivery of the railway through legal processes could come up with the argument that a particular right of way has been used for 20 years, and it would then be our job to disprove that claim. I hope the hon. Gentleman will understand that we are trying to prevent a legal mechanism. I do not think that there are many rights of way within the Euston area that would not be considered rights of way and thus might require the process to be used. However, it might be used in other areas on the railway, and we might find that it was a legal minefield. That is why we have included the measure in the Bill.

I hope that that has reassured the hon. Gentleman. It is absolutely our intention to do everything possible to ensure that those affected by the construction and delivery of the railway can continue with their normal way of life and have the access that they currently enjoy to property and businesses. The railway is all about accessibility and getting people moving around the country; it is not about preventing people from moving where they wish.

[Andy McDonald]

I acknowledge what the Minister has said. To clarify, I am not suggesting for one minute that the clause be remitted or excluded; I simply want to add to it. This is not either/or, it is just about providing the permissive ability to create new rights of way. I stand by my remarks and, with your indulgence, Mr Hanson, I will press the matter to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

The clause introduces schedule 16, which gives the Secretary of State a power to take temporary possession of land within the limits of the Bill for the purpose of phase 1 of HS2. The land listed in the table in the schedule may only be taken temporarily, and is not acquired except for rights over the land and subsoil.

Schedule 16 sets out the procedure, including the notice required, the payment of compensation to affected landowners and arrangements for the restoration and return of the land. Where land is not required permanently or not materially changed, or where no new railway works will be constructed, we will normally consider the use of powers of temporary possession if the landlord so wishes and it is economic for the Secretary of State to do so.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 15 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 16 agreed to.

Clause 16

Use of roads

[Andy McDonald]

I beg to move amendment 12, in clause 16, page 7, line 19, leave out—

“the end of five years beginning with”.

This amendment would remove the power of the nominated undertaker to use specified roads for the passage of persons or vehicles for five years after Phase One is brought into general use.

This is very much a probing amendment—I do not think we will need to divide on it. It is about an issue raised by the right hon. Member for Chelmsford: the project being on time. As currently drafted, the clause leaves the timescales in some doubt. The Opposition agree that the nominated undertaker should of course have the power to use any roads on specified land for the passage of persons and vehicles for the purposes of phase 1 of High Speed 2, but it is not clear why the nominated undertaker will require that power for five additional years after phase 1 has been brought into general use. Once it is up and running, it is up and running. I do not want to put at residents’ doors the spectre of vehicles trucking up and down with materials.

[Sir Simon Burns]

As the hon. Gentleman was talking, I was wondering whether extra time might be needed to, for example, continue to clear a site of debris if there had not been the time to do so before phase 1 was up and running.

[Andy McDonald]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point, and that may indeed be so, but the clause currently specifies a five-year period beyond the project being completed and effective. Something would have to have gone badly wrong if the clearance of debris and materials took five years.

I keep coming back to the example of Euston. The people in that neighbourhood will necessarily be affected by very considerable building works. We will discuss this in greater detail later in Committee, but some of the works will be really close to people’s homes—within a few metres of retaining walls and retained properties next to HS2—so they will have enough on their plate. I would suggest that the prospect of the project being concluded but there being permission for roads to be used for the specified purpose for a further five-year period will be intolerable.

We are suggesting that the reference to five years be left out, leaving subsection (2) to read: “The power…may not be exercised after the date on which Phase One of High Speed 2 is brought into general use.” The right hon. Gentleman’s point is fair, but the amendment was tabled to highlight the fact that things could literally rumble on for years, long after HS2 is up and running. Will the Minister help us by explaining why it is necessary for the nominated undertaker to be able to exercise the power for such a long time?

[Mr Goodwill]

I shall clarify exactly what the clause specifies for the use of roads. It allows the nominated undertaker to use any road specified in the table in schedule 8, which is for land in which only rights may be compulsorily acquired, or in the table in paragraph 2 of schedule 11, so as to obtain a right of passage for the purpose of phase 1 of HS2. As we have discussed, the power will end five years after phase 1 of HS2 is brought into general use.

On compensation, I reassure the hon. Gentleman that if access to the roads is required, compensation is payable by the nominated undertaker to the person responsible for managing the road for any loss suffered as a result of its use for phase 1 of HS2. We are not taking a right without understanding our obligations to the owner of the road. Any dispute over entitlement to compensation or the amount of compensation must be determined under part 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1961.

The power will last for five years, to enable the nominated undertaker to carry out remedial works if necessary. Let me assure the hon. Gentleman that that goes beyond what is referred to in the building trade as basic snagging—the alleviation of minor problems. In any construction project, it is essential that the promoter retains the ability to return to the works following completion to rectify any defects that arise. Subsection (1) allows the access rights used for construction to be used after the completion of the works for that purpose. For a major project such as this, a period of five years is considered an appropriate amount of time for such rights to be retained.

Let me draw attention to some of the issues that might come up. The hon. Gentleman talked about hydrogeological issues, such as problems with drainage or subsidence, and asked whether the infrastructure of the line will need to be revisited if faults emerge. We regard five years as a sensible timescale for problems to emerge, and we therefore consider it necessary. I hope the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

[Andy McDonald]

I am grateful for the Minister’s response. There is logic in what he says, and I entirely get the point about the ability to return. One would like to think that the power will rarely be used. He talked about issues arising within five years, but if something untoward takes place further on in the lifetime of HS2—if there is a hydrogeological or electrical problem—the undertaker will have to return to the site.

As I said, this is a probing amendment, and as the Minister has gone a long way towards satisfying me, I am minded to withdraw it. However, given that he has raised the issue, can he describe the nominated undertaker’s power to return to the scene to address construction problems that emerge after the five-year period has elapsed? Presumably they are as relevant as anything that occurs within the five-year period.

[Mr Goodwill]

The first point I would make is that we have a very good way of accessing the high-speed rail line, which is along the high-speed rail line itself. Much of the engineering work and maintenance that will need to be carried out on the signalling or the catenary—the overhead lines—can be accessed from the railway itself. In the vast majority of cases, we will be able to access the line using the line.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that in 40 or 50 years’ time, we may need to carry out other work. Network Rail already has processes to enable that to happen, including negotiation with landowners and permissive use. This clause is specifically about addressing defects or issues that require more major engineering work than the maintenance that we envisage over the lifetime of the railway. It is sensible to have such powers in hand. We are confident that the railway that will be delivered will be reliable and well constructed. Once again, the braces-and-belt strategy ensures that the power is in place if it is necessary to look at particular aspects of the line and carry out further work to alleviate problems.

[Andy McDonald]

I am grateful to the Minister for his reassurances and further explanations. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17

Cranes

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

[Mr Goodwill]

This clause enables cranes employed by the nominated undertaker to enter the airspace above the land outlined in the table in subsection (7) for the purposes of the works for phase 1 of HS2. Seven days’ notice must be given to the owners and occupiers of the land before the right to oversail a crane is exercised. The right ends seven days after completion of the activities for which the crane has been used. The nominated undertaker must pay compensation to landowners should loss be suffered as a result of the oversailing of cranes. Any dispute, as to a person’s entitlement to compensation, or as to the amount of compensation, must be determined under part 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1961. Nothing in these provisions will affect liability compensation under the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 17 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18

Enforcement of restrictions on land use

[Mr Goodwill]

Clause 18 refers to enforcement of restrictions on land use and allows the Secretary of State, when entering into agreements relating to phase 1 of HS2 that impose prohibitions or restrictions on the owners of land, to bind successors in title as if they were the original party. That is despite the fact that the Secretary of State may not at any time of the agreement own land to be benefited by the prohibition or restriction.

The clause ensures that a change in the ownership of land required in some way for HS2 purposes does not extinguish any covenants entered into by agreement between the Secretary of State and the previous landowner. Normally, for such a power to be enforceable, one would require an interest in land to be benefited by the covenant. However, the Secretary of State will have such an interest only after he exercises power under the Bill. The clause ensures that agreements entered into before the power to exercise are enforceable against successors in title.

Will the restriction or provision be a local land charge? Yes. The disapplication of section 2(c) of the Local Land Charges Act 1975 secures that the restriction or provision will be a local land charge.

[Andy McDonald]

A point occurred to me when the Minister mentioned the succession in title and the power to bind the land subsequently, should the Secretary of State, as the single shareholder of HS2 Ltd, ever part company with ownership. I support the clause but would make another point. That situation could be avoided altogether if the Government committed to keep the railway in state ownership in perpetuity.

[Mr Goodwill]

I think that might be a subject for debate another day in another place. Having seen the success of privatised railways in the UK, with our franchising model emulated around the world, I think we should keep all our options open—

[Andy McDonald]

Indeed.

[Mr Goodwill]

—to ensure that we can deliver the best railway, which in my view may well include some private sector involvement.

[Andy McDonald]

Amen to keeping all options open.

[The Chair]

The question is that clause 18, in the meantime, stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 18 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19

Compensation for injurious affection

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

[Mr Goodwill]

Clause 19 refers to compensation for injurious affection. I am so pleased that I am not a lawyer having to deal with these terms all the time. To put it simply, it provides that the nominated undertaker, instead of the Secretary of State, will be responsible for paying compensation under section 10(1) of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965.

Section 10(1) provides for compensation for any decrease in the market value of land caused by the carrying out of the authorised works. It is appropriate for the nominated undertaker to be responsible for paying that type of compensation, since the works have to be carried out by the nominated undertaker, not, hon. Members will be pleased to know, by the Secretary of State.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 19 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20

Deemed planning permission

[Andy McDonald]

I beg to move amendment 13, in clause 20, page 9, line 14, at end insert—

“(d) No works that are not scheduled works under this Act may be undertaken until the Secretary of State has published guidelines on how developments will be assessed as likely to have significant effects on the environment for the purposes of subsection (2)(a).”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish guidelines on how developments will be assessed as to whether they are likely to have significant effects on the environment.

I am grateful to the Minister for his clarification of injurious affection. I thought that might be something to do with over-passionate kissing. [Interruption.] What people get up to in Whitby when Dracula is around, I leave to them.

I speak to clause 20 and the deemed planning permission provisions. Our amendment seeks to make a significant change. At subsection (2)(c) we add:

“No works that are not scheduled works under this Act may be undertaken until the Secretary of State has published guidelines on how developments will be assessed as likely to have significant effects on the environment for the purposes of subsection (2)(a)”.

That would simply provide that where development authorised by this Act consists of carrying out works not scheduled under the Act, subsection (1) does not apply—in other words, deemed planning permission—if the development is likely to have significant effects on the environment with factors such as nature, size and location. That is what we are trying to gain clarity about and I hope that my amendment will assist. As it currently stands, it is the decision of the Secretary of State to adjudge whether a future development that is not scheduled has a significant environmental impact. However, the criteria that the Secretary of State would use are not delineated or specified in the Bill. In the interests of transparency and specificity, we are seeking to secure guidelines from the Secretary of State about how such a decision will be made.

This is an important amendment—as they all are—because without that qualification the Secretary of State is able to deem a development not to have a significant effect on the environment, without an effective means of challenge. There could be circumstances where unscheduled works become necessary and the Secretary of State makes a decision that the said works do not have a significant effect on the environment. It is conceivable that there could be significant and substantial opposition to that development within a locality, so we believe that it is an important and necessary step for the Secretary of State to settle guidelines by which such decisions can be judged. The Select Committee process has gone through the environmental concerns for the matters that we know about, but if issues arise at a later date, somebody will undoubtedly come along and complain that the Secretary of State has used the powers as currently described to say that the development that people are complaining about does not have a significant effect on the environment in its size, nature or location. The general public would be more satisfied if they could refer to criteria detailed within guidelines to describe how the Secretary of State arrives at a decision. At the moment, this effectively gives the Minister carte blanche to deem development as not falling within that category.

In the absence of such guidelines, I ask the Minister to describe how these concerns would be addressed. If he concludes with me that there is no satisfactory method of adjudging whether the decision is a sound one, we will decide to press this amendment to a vote. I look forward to the Minister’s comments and explanation.

[Mr Goodwill]

I am happy to take criticism over various aspects of the way that HS2 has been delivered, but not in terms of the way we have addressed the environmental concerns that have been raised up and down the country. We made the point that there will be no net environmental loss in delivering the project, and indeed we have gone far beyond anything required in statute for a major infrastructure project. I spent the best part of an afternoon talking about tree species and how we can take this opportunity to work with those seeking to produce elm trees resistant to Dutch elm disease and ash trees resistant to ash dieback and re-establish those species.

I understand the importance attached to environmental considerations. Whether we are talking about pipistrelle bats, Bechstein’s bats or whatever else, we are aware of our obligations and we have been held to account by many of the environmental groups involved in that area.

[Andy McDonald]

I seem to have inadvertently struck a raw nerve. By no means am I being critical of the environmental assessments to date; I am concerned about the powers that the Secretary of State has for the future. I will not criticise at all the excellent things done in the course of the Select Committee and by the Department, but there needs to be the power and ability to hold someone to account if a decision is made that someone objects to. It is about the future, not what has happened to date.

[Mr Goodwill]

I absolutely understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern, so, having set the context, I will proceed to put his mind at rest on the clause. I underline that I am committed to delivering environmental enhancements. Unfortunately, when one delivers such a project, one has to go through land that has some sensitive environmental features, so it is important to mitigate that by putting measures in place on the land that can be acquired for the project and they will be provided.

To put the clause in context, it refers to deemed planning permission, which it provides under part III of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for carrying out the works authorised by the Bill. Deemed planning permission is granted only for ancillary work in the Bill when the impact of such work is assessed in the environmental statement or when the development is an exempt development in the meaning of the environmental impact assessment regulations. Exempt development includes developments such as defence installations, which are highly unlikely to apply to phase 1, but we have put that measure in for legal completeness. Any work outside those parameters will require separate planning permission.

Subsection (3) introduces schedule 17, which sets out the conditions of deemed planning permission. That includes the requirement for approval from relevant local authorities on specific aspects of design and construction to ensure that local impacts, such as the movement of lorries to and from construction sites, are mitigated appropriately.

I hope to reassure the hon. Gentlemen that the bases he draws my attention to are already covered. The Bill gives permission for ancillary works for which the effects have been reported in the environmental statement and any works that give rise to environmental effects significantly different from those reported in that statement will require separate planning permission. The means of assessing whether an effect is significant are set out in the scope and methodology report that informs the environmental assessment of the Bill. That is not a matter for the Secretary of State’s whim but one that has been addressed and the process is set out in the report, which was subject to consultation with stakeholders during its preparation.

The methodology in the report is based on industry best practice. The Select Committee process has demonstrated that it is sound and it will be the correct methodology for assessing the environmental effects of works through the design and construction of HS2. I hope that that clarification reassures the hon. Gentleman that he can withdraw his amendment.

[Andy McDonald]

It seems to me that the methodology that the Minister refers to could be engrossed into guidelines. I fail to see why a public-facing document cannot set that out. If that is how it currently works, I accept entirely what he says. It is not just a question of nomenclature; it is important that people have a reference that they can turn to and say, “These are the criteria that will be observed.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

I will endeavour to help the hon. Gentleman. The methodology is public, and the way in which the methodology is being applied would be subject to the scrutiny of those who wish to test that the methodology is being applied properly. The project is not being delivered while the environmental non-governmental organisations are looking the other way. This has had intense scrutiny, not only from those who have the interest of the environment at heart, but from those who I suspect are using some of the environmental legislation to try to frustrate the delivery of the Bill. We have people looking for reasons why they could prevent this going forward. That is why we have had to make sure that in terms of the environment every single t has been crossed and every single i dotted.

As I mentioned before, we have been through the hybrid Select Committee stage, where those who may have considered the process to be an inadequate way to deal with the changes could have raised that, but the Select Committee was content that the process would be robust. I hope I have reassured the hon. Gentleman that the methodology, which is public, will be used to determine where the clause would be applied. As I have already said, if anything reported was beyond the environmental effects reported in the environmental statement, that would require a separate planning permission. Of course, planning permissions would be subject to all the environmental and other consultations and challenges that could be made.

I think we are in a good place on this. I do not have any fears that we would be risking some of our environmental delivery on this project by having the clause in the Bill.

[Andy McDonald]

I am grateful to the Minister. He has gone all the way to satisfying my concerns. In a nutshell, the methodology contains the guidelines that I have been looking for, so I intend to withdraw the amendment. I simply ask that we be provided with a copy of the document. It speaks to my ignorance rather than my trying to dig deeper into this. I was not aware of the existence of that process and I would be better informed if I had sight of it. It would be churlish of me not to accept that the Minister has satisfied the important intent of the amendment in every respect. Contrary to my initial intentions, I will—

[Mr Goodwill]

Before the hon. Gentleman finishes, I can assure him that I will get the relevant paperwork to him before we reconvene this afternoon, or if not, before our sitting on Thursday.

[Andy McDonald]

On that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

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

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

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 1st March 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 14, in clause 21, page 9, line 30, after “by order” insert—

“by up to a further 5 years”.

Under clause 21 planning permission for a scheduled work to be undertaken is valid for 10 years, unless the Secretary of State extends the period under subsection (2) by a statutory instrument. This amendment would limit each extension to a further five years.

Subsection (2), as drafted, reads:

“The Secretary of State may, in relation to any such development, by order extend the period within which the development must be begun”.

My amendment would limit each such extension to a further five years at the conclusion of the initial 10 years from the date of the passing of the Act. Ten years after the Bill has been enacted as an initial time limit on the commencement of works is extremely generous, given that the scheduling of works means that the service is expected to start in 2026.

It should be noted that that time limit is for the commencement of works, not their completion. The clause is not saying that the deemed planning permission lasts for 10 years, during which time the works must be completed; it is simply saying that they must be started. If we assume that the Bill is passed in 2016 and that works are completed as scheduled, works starting in each of the years from the end of 2016 right up until the end of 2026 would, by virtue of subsection (1), be deemed to have planning permission.

It is hard to imagine any works within the current contemplation of the promoter that will not have been commenced by 2025 at the very latest—and that is a stretch, to imagine that nothing would start before 2025. I would have thought that all the scheduled works will have been long since started by such a late date. If I have got that wrong, perhaps the Minister will identify any works with such a late start date in the 10-year construction period that need the protection of an unlimited extension period.

The words in the Bill are “must be begun”, so their commencement is the determining factor, not their completion. For any works started by 2023, 2024 or 2025—so long as they have been started—the deemed planning permission will be effective, notwithstanding the fact that they will not be completed by 2026. Indeed, for those examples the permission will be effective until 2033, 2034 or 2035, a maximum of nine years beyond the date on which it is expected that the service will be not only ready for use, but up and running.

There is, in effect, plenty of run-on time. For example, if the project slipped very badly for reasons that we cannot currently envisage—be that the disastrous management of the economy over the intervening years by the current or subsequent Governments, or some world economic downturn the consequences of which delayed matters so badly that the key component works had not been commenced by 2026—surely that would put the entire project at risk. It would be such a different scenario that the people of the United Kingdom and its Parliament would be entitled, and indeed duty-bound, to conduct a root-and-branch review. If we are able to stick to timescales and costs within proper and reasonable parameters, it would be entirely proper for the matter to come back before Parliament for further consideration. To grant open-ended permissions, or have the ability to grant them, would go way beyond what was originally contemplated and would treat the public with disdain. If we cannot commence the necessary works by the time our timetable envisages the system being up and running, something will have gone badly wrong.

The promoter and the nominated undertaker will know now what works are necessary to build HS2. Clearly, elements of the scheduled works are properly sequenced, but the scheduled works themselves will have commenced, or certainly should have done, long before the end of the 10-year permitted construction period. Of course, the final fixings and other ancillary works will necessarily start later than the date on which the initial scheduled works commence. Those final fixings and ancillary works surely do not need deemed planning permissions in their own right; they are simply part of the scheduled works themselves.

There may be run-ons that we cannot predict. In his remarks on clause 16, the Minister alluded to the need to use roads to facilitate contractors revisiting the site of works in the event of necessary amendment, maintenance or repair. He has used the example of ongoing hydrogeological works and, presumably, hydrogeological surveying. To say that deemed planning permission—I stress that phrase—can effectively be extended indefinitely is to stretch the point beyond its natural elasticity. There has to be an end point. As it is, works can be commenced at the eleventh hour, as against the 10-year post-assent construction period, and be deemed to have planning permission. The Secretary of State can simply extend that initial 10-year period without limit. However, that would only serve to create great uncertainty, if landowners within the scope of the works, or landowners and occupiers not within the scope of the works but affected by them, were not sure whether any such proposed works were taking place. Given the flexibility within the Act with regard to phase 1 works, the provision has the potential to create considerable anxiety, which my amendment attempts to address.

However, we can understand the argument and the need for the Secretary of State to have the power to extend the period within which works should be commenced and therefore have the benefit of deemed planning permission. All we are saying is that there should be a reasonable cap on the extent to which such an extension can be granted. Our amendment proposes a limit to each extension to a further five-year period. We think that is eminently reasonable. As currently configured, it would cover developments from the anticipated start date of 2016, initially to 2026 and by extension to 2031, a total period of 15 years from the date of Royal Assent.

The process through which that would be achieved, namely the negative procedure, is also agreeable. We would know the issue from the outset and the ability to reject the statutory instrument by resolution is more than sufficient in such circumstances, and it would not be necessary to deploy the affirmative procedure and require the measure to be the subject of debate. As it is, we are concerned that there is no specified time limit for each extension and believe that limiting each extension to a further five-year period would be sufficient. [Interruption.]

[The Chair]

Order. I am grateful to the noble Lord, but he is trespassing on a Commons Committee.

[Andy McDonald]

It is currently estimated that HS2 will be completed and ready for general use by 2026, which is 10 years after the Bill receives Royal Assent, and a five-year extension would take us to 2031, which is surely a more than sufficient amount of time for a planning permission extension. As long as the Government do not anticipate significant delays to the construction of HS2, planning permission being valid for 10 years after Royal Assent, with a potential additional five-year period, would be more than ample and would allay any concerns that the Secretary of State was acquiring an unnecessary power.

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

Let me say at the outset that we would never treat the people of this country with disdain. Indeed, the way that this project has been presented and how we have engaged with people, particularly on the line of route, has shown the utmost respect for people’s rights, particularly their property rights.

Clause 21 sets out as a condition of deemed planning permission a time limit of 10 years after Royal Assent within which the authorised works must have commenced. The clause also allows the Secretary of State by order to extend the period by which any work must be commenced. Such an order is to be made by a statutory instrument that is subject to a negative resolution procedure.

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough asked, “Why 10 years?” It is important to stress that the maximum period of 10 years would be deployed only in unusual circumstances. We are talking about unforeseen events, and I certainly cannot foresee an event that would delay the project for that long, but the length of any extension would be up to the Secretary of State’s judgment. It is not 10 years or nothing; it is a case of what sort of extension could be chosen. It is a reasonable maximum period of time and it is normal for major infrastructure projects such as phase 1 of HS2.

The current build programme is 10 years, meaning that it is possible, with our current plan, that some of the works included in the Bill will not commence until up to 10 years from Royal Assent. Indeed, specific elements of the project may not be commenced until the very end. One example is the provision of the electricity supply for the trains, which would be one of the last elements to put in place. Another such element is the environmental reinstatement, which would be done right at the end of the project. Indeed, much of the excavated material may take some time to be stabilised before that environmental work can be carried out.

Our promise to provide better rights of way, including cycle paths, as part of HS2 would also form one of the final elements, perhaps meaning that planning consent would be actioned only at the very end of the project. Even a small slippage in time could result in the 10-year period being eaten up. Indeed, some of the work could be carried out once the line is operational. For example, I would expect the environmental work to be going on for quite some time after the line is opened.

The proposal provides flexibility for the programme. While our current plan is for construction to be completed within 10 years, unforeseen events could disrupt the programme. We need to be able to manage such events while still constructing the railway. We will know how much more time we require only at the point of seeking an extension, and any such order will be subject to parliamentary procedure.

--- Later in debate ---

We stress that it is not intended that the power in this clause will be exercised, as it is planned that works will start promptly after Royal Assent. Projects such as the channel tunnel rail link and Crossrail are demonstrating this country’s capacity to deliver projects on time. None the less, allowing flexibility to cope with unforeseen events is prudent and necessary, and I hope that my clarification will reassure the hon. Gentleman that he can withdraw his amendment.

[Andy McDonald]

The Minister talks about things that we cannot anticipate. We know that the unknowns are unknown, so we have to live with that on a daily basis. He describes the provision as presenting a reasonable maximum time; I suggest that it does no such thing. A reasonable maximum means an end point expressed in years, months, hours or minutes. If the provision simply says “extend the period,” there is no delineation of what the maximum may be. I kindly say to him that it cannot be both. In the Minister’s defence, I take the point about the potential run-ons.

The environmental reinstatement issue is perhaps the most valid, but I cannot see that powering electricity to works that have already commenced is a separate development in its own right. The work has already started. It is not a new undertaking or brand-new construction work, so it is something that continues. He also made the acceptable point that some environmental reinstatements may continue when the operation is up and running.

I am also slightly concerned about the Bill containing a power that the Minister says will not be used, which is difficult to reconcile.

[Mr Goodwill]

I was just speculating on what might be the outcome if this clause were not accepted and if the hon. Gentleman’s amendment were to be included in the Bill. We could end up in the situation that we often see with developers, which will build a property up to floor level to action the planning consent and then leave it for a while before the work continues. I would not want to engineer a situation in which aspects of HS2 are commenced merely to action the planning consent, with the land not being developed further until such stage in the project as it becomes necessary. That could mean that those whose land is being given up might find that they have their land for less time before it is taken away from them. That is dangerous if we are not careful. Without this power, we could end up with people having their land taken from them so that work can commence to action the planning consent but then be put on ice until such a time as that work can be completed.

[Andy McDonald]

The Minister almost got me over the line, and then he introduced that new concept. I was about to sit down.

[Mr Goodwill]

I was helping the hon. Gentleman.

[Andy McDonald]

But helping me with that sows seeds of even greater doubt that we might reach the end of a period just to anchor the land and secure the plot. If we get into a situation where that sort of behaviour is taking place with HS2, which is so heavily regulated, it will be a sorry state of affairs. I have sufficient faith in the promoter of the clause to be sure that that sort of activity will not happen, but I can see that he is itching to speak.

[Mr Goodwill]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that that would be a sorry state of affairs. The clause means that no one would even be able to contemplate doing so, because an extension could be sought if necessary.

[Andy McDonald]

I am continuing to dig. I will call a draw. Respectfully, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 22

Power to disapply deemed planning permission

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

[Mr Goodwill]

Clause 22 gives the power to disapply deemed planning permission. It allows the Secretary of State, by order, to disapply the planning permission granted by the Bill for maintenance or alteration of phase 1 works that are carried out after a specified date. The clause is intended to relate to works post-construction where it would be disproportionate for the HS2 infrastructure operator to have such broad planning permission.

Once the Secretary of State has disapplied the deemed planning permission, post-construction maintenance and general improvement works on phase 1 of HS2 will be authorised using the normal provisions outlined in the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015. It is a standard approach to railway operators, including Network Rail. There is no parliamentary procedure for the order. It is not subject to parliamentary procedure because we are removing a broad power and reverting to the normal planning regime.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 22 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 23

Parking at Birmingham Interchange: limit on deemed planning permission

[Andy McDonald]

I beg to move amendment 15, in clause 23, page 11, line 29, at end, insert “where the meaning of the expression ‘short-term’ shall not extend to stays of more than 12 hours”.

Clause 23 allows for the creation of up to 7,500 parking spaces but this limit on spaces does not apply to short-term parking. This amendment defines short-term parking as being parking for a period of 12 hours or less.

We move from planning permissions and extensions thereof to the vexed question of parking in Birmingham, which I am sure everybody has been looking forward to. I think—dare I say it—that we are now back on track with our amendment. When it was initially presented, it may have been slotted in as part of the clause in error. I think I am right in saying that we are now at clause 23, page 11—

[The Chair]

Order. May I assist the hon. Gentleman? I have been notified by the Clerks that there is a small error on the Order Paper. Amendment 15 should relate to clause 23, page 11, line 28. Other than that, I understand that it is correct. Is the hon. Gentleman happy to speak to that?

[Andy McDonald]

I am indeed. I am grateful for the clarification, Mr Hanson.

The amendment expresses our concerns about the volume of motor traffic that would be generated by the interchange station. We have been informed by the Campaign to Protect Rural England, whose petition on the issue and representations to the Select Committee we note. The CPRE’s initial concern was that the Birmingham interchange would be situated in the green belt. In our amendment, we are pursuing not that concern but some other legitimate concerns raised about the consequences of the station’s location.

This amendment attempts to address the volume of traffic that will be generated by the interchange station, the associated proposals to expand the capacity of the surrounding road, and the pressure that would create for further expansion of the road network in the surrounding area.

One of the overarching purposes of building a railway, or indeed of investing in any form of public transport, is to reduce the number of journeys taken by car. Efforts should be made to ensure that there is not an inadvertent increase in net journeys by private car. The fear is that the inadvertent consequence of the specifications contained within clause 23—or, rather, the lack of them—may produce an undesirable outcome. It is submitted that the management of car parking spaces is one of the most efficient means to influence travel choices. There is a significant worry that the plans as set out in the Bill might encourage extra journeys by car. Indeed, one of the representations from the Campaign to Protect Rural England initially asked for the limit to be placed at 2,000 car parking spaces—yet the clause gives the much higher figure of 7,500—and also suggested that the limit placed on spaces for coaches should be increased to 25, and that car parking spaces should be multi-storey. That gives a flavour of some of the concerns of the Campaign to Protect Rural England.

As I say, currently the Bill provides for a limit to be placed on the provision of car parking places of 7,500 and, somewhat curiously, five parking spaces for coaches. I do not know whether the Minister can shed some light on that. That seems to be a very strange ratio, but undoubtedly there will be a logical explanation for it.

Be that as it may, the exclusions in subsection (4)(c)(i) of the clause exempt,

“the provision of short-term parking for cars”,

and, understandably, also the short-term parking for taxis and coaches. Subsection (4)(c)(ii) specifies an exemption for “parking on working sites”.

The clause puts a limit on car parking spaces of 7,500, but short-term car parking spaces are excluded from that. Exclusion from the provision may well serve to increase yet further the number of vehicles parked at Birmingham Interchange. As there is no definition of the term “short term” for the car parking spaces in Birmingham, people who currently plan to travel by train to Birmingham and then change trains might alternatively decide to drive to the station by car and park there, rather than using other forms of public transport. The whole issue is how to get some modal shift in how people go about their business.

[Sir Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)]

As the hon. Gentleman was speaking, I wondered whether there is not a problem when there is no legal definition of “short term”. The hon. Gentleman’s amendment seeks to define it as up to 12 hours, yet at Heathrow airport short-term parking is up to three or four days, for example. It seems rather vague terminology to use on the face of a Bill.

[Andy McDonald]

I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. That is why we seek to specify the number of hours that constitute short-term car parking. It varies from one environment to another. In very busy city centres it might be 20 or 30 minutes, or it might be an hour. There is no universal statutory definition of what short-term car parking is. The amendment tries to address that for the purposes of this particular location.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. The purpose of this amendment is to probe and tease out from the Minister exactly how this issue might be addressed. I declare now that I do not intend to press the amendment to a vote. However, I hope that it will elicit further information from the Minister during this discussion. The right hon. Gentleman’s point is valid and indeed there is no such definition, as we currently understand it.

What we are saying, in simple terms, is that in an attempt to go some way towards reducing the need for people to make unnecessary car journeys, and to encourage travellers to use other forms of transport, our amendment seeks to limit the time-limit maximum to 12 hours. That period of 12 hours would be more than sufficient for a traveller to conduct business in another location in the course of a working day, but would hopefully discourage them if their return to Birmingham took more than 12 hours. We address that at line 28, so that the limit of 7,500 car parking spaces that would be set out in clause 23(1) is not exceeded by the provision of short-term car parking for the duration of a stay that is less than 12 hours.

Hopefully, that will go some way towards curtailing the excessive car use that presumably the Government—who are promoting the Bill—wish to avoid. As I said, this is a probing amendment, but it would be appreciated if the Minister could reassure the Committee in as much detail as possible that thorough and comprehensive consideration has been given to how we might minimise the risk of unintended consequences. I hope that the Minister will give some delineation or some guidance as to what is meant by “short-term parking”.

[Mr Goodwill]

I am more than happy to give a little bit more background about our thinking, which the hon. Gentleman is trying to tease out.

My short answer to his questions would be that these issues need to be addressed but probably not for another nine or 10 years, when the project will be on the ground and delivered. As the hon. Gentleman knows, clause 23 specifically relates to parking at Birmingham Interchange and sets limits on deemed planning permission. It limits the application of deemed planning permission under clause 20(1), regarding medium and long-term car parking at Birmingham Interchange, to no more than 7,500 cars and five coaches.

The figures for coaches and cars were based on our assessment of likely parking demand and a traffic assessment in the area, and to allow for expansion or excess demand the figure includes an allowance for flexibility. It was felt that parking is different in nature from operational railway structures, and therefore different controls were needed. Incidentally, other stations along the line of route do not have car parking on this scale and therefore have not been addressed in this way.

Local planning authorities will have controls over the details of the car park. Indeed, subsection (3) states:

“The deemed planning permission under section 20(1) for relevant development is…outline planning permission”

for the purposes, as set out in subsection (4)(b), of:

“the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure)(England) Order 2015”.

Therefore, as subsection (3) sets out, subsequent approval would be required from the local planning authority in relation to

“access, appearance, landscaping and layout”

of the car parking.

I turn specifically to the hon. Gentleman’s amendment. The clause has been drafted to provide sufficient medium and long-term parking at the station, and to ensure that this parking, which differs from operational railway development, is subject to appropriate planning control. The numbers set out are based on a robust forecast of demand for parking at the station.

The purpose of subsection (4)(c)(i) is to exclude short-term parking from this control as it is part of the operation of the railway. For example, it is used by people being dropped off or people collecting passengers at the station, or parking to do so. This could have been more accurately described as “drop-off” rather than “parking”. Indeed, many stations around the country already have separate provision for short-term parking for people to collect passengers or to drop them off.

We do not think it would be appropriate to amend clause 23, as the commercial strategy for parking at the station has yet to be developed, and the proposed amendment would have the effect of fixing parking arrangements too soon. Also, by defining short-term as being up to 12 hours, the amendment risks removing day-long parking from the control in clause 23, which we do not believe is the intent.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned someone who might want to do business all day in London. It may be that, if he gets a very early train, 12 hours would not be sufficient to complete the return journey, despite the fact that HS2 will be such a fast train. The person visiting Birmingham or London might well have time to have dinner and still get back at their expected time.

As parking strategy is considered by the operator of the car park, I suspect it will be to keep the car park full. The pricing and timings of the parking would be designed to maximise the income and ensure that the provision is taken up to the maximum extent.

The hon. Gentleman talked about whether we might be in danger of creating extra car journeys. If parking were restricted, either by duration or price, many passengers would choose to travel to stations by taxi and, therefore, there would be four car journeys associated with the day trip he referred to, rather than two if the passenger left their car at the station.

Looking at the environmental impact, in 10 or more years from now, we will see much more sustainable vehicles in the national fleet. Even the vehicles operating at the moment, if they get their diesel engines fixed, will work a lot better than at the moment. We have already seen a large take-up in the number of electric cars on our roads. I suspect that will continue to increase.

The hon. Gentleman asked why there were only five coach spaces. From my experience at stations such as York, which I use regularly, one does not see coaches picking up large numbers of people. People going on group holidays might do that but, by and large, one does not see large groups of people travelling by train at the moment. Many people will come to the station by bus and other forms of sustainable transport. If a coach were picking up passengers, the chances are it would be there for only a short time to arrive at the car park and pick up that group.

The mix between coach and car will need to be addressed at the time. That could well be flexible, as it is only a case of painting a few additional white lines on the car park.

The hon. Gentleman said that this was a probing amendment. He raises perfectly valid points but we do not need to rush our fences. They will need to be considered at the point that the car park is put into use by passengers. That may well be before the operation of the railway. If the car park is not used for construction, it may be possible to get income from the car park before the railway is available.

I hope my explanation reassures the hon. Gentleman, and that he will withdraw his amendment.

[Andy McDonald]

I hope the workers will not be charged for working on the site. That would be over the top. I hope they will be able to turn up for work and not think about paying car-parking fees.

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

Health workers do.

[Andy McDonald]

Health workers do but, hopefully, it will not happen on this occasion. Perhaps we can have better practice for HS2. There will undoubtedly be a very large area where they can park their vehicles, so perhaps the Minister could reflect on that.

I understand what the Minister is saying and his clarification is helpful. If I were being unkind I would say that his telling us that we should not insert this provision about short-term car parking in the Bill now prompts the question why the Bill specifies 7,500 car spaces and five spaces for coaches, but I think he has addressed that. I am also grateful that he has made it clear that he contemplates the five parking spaces for coaches for dropping off passengers and not for long-term parking.

As he said, all of that will come out in the wash, but the basic principle of the amendment is to encourage people to use trains and not make unnecessary journeys. He is also right about the 12 hours. People may be able to travel to London, do their business and get back for dinner before they have even set off, it will be so quick; so we look forward to those developments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment, having been satisfied with the Minister’s clarification.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 24

Development consent

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

[Mr Goodwill]

We now move to clause 24. It is more a clarification of the situation with this railway than a change to it. Clause 24 makes it clear that development consent under the Planning Act 2008 is not required for the authorised works. That Act has specific powers related to the construction of national infrastructure projects such as HS2. As the Bill will provide the powers required to build and maintain phase 1 of HS2, a development consent order is unnecessary. Indeed, given the importance of the HS2 scheme and the requirement to alter existing legislation to allow the expeditious construction, maintenance and operation of the railway, it was decided that for this scheme Parliament should be the authorising body. A hybrid Bill was therefore the most appropriate mechanism.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 24 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 25

Listed buildings

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

[Mr Goodwill]

I will attempt to be as brief as I was on the previous clause. This is a very important clause relating to listed buildings, a number of which unfortunately are affected by the construction of HS2. Clause 25 introduces schedule 18, which disapplies or modifies controls for listed buildings to allow the construction of phase 1 of HS2 and enable the monitoring and protection of listed buildings. The buildings affected are listed in tables 1 and 2 in schedule 18, and the disapplications or modifications apply only to those buildings. Similar provisions were included in the Crossrail Act 2008.

The promoter is in the process of agreeing heritage agreements with the relevant local authorities and Historic England. These agreements will put in place an approvals process that will ensure that the works subject to clause 25 and schedule 18 are carried out in an appropriate manner. I stress that we wish to minimise the impact on listed buildings wherever possible; this clause underlines that wish.

[Andy McDonald]

I want to ask for clarification from the Minister. He is absolutely right to highlight the importance of our listed buildings, which are listed because they are treasured and regarded as worthy in cultural or architectural terms. Will the Minister say a little more about how these heritage agreements might preserve the buildings in terms of their make-up? For example, we talked about the ambitions to restore the Euston arch. I think I am right in saying that bits of the Euston arch are scattered to the four winds. Some are in a beck somewhere, some are in a farmyard and others cannot be found. We are going to go through a thoughtful process of how to deal with these listed buildings. What sort of process is in place to try where possible to preserve the elements of a building—as we do with monuments—so that, for example, it can be re-sited somewhere else or otherwise utilised?

[Mr Goodwill]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making those reasonable points. In cases where buildings are being destroyed and demolished in order to build the railway, there are no plans to reconstruct them elsewhere. However, other buildings will be affected by vibration or noise and the aesthetic value of others might be reduced by the proximity of the railway. We are conscious of those problems, and that is why the listed building controls that we are disapplying are done in a sympathetic way. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be reassured that all works will have to be done in accordance with the environmental minimum requirements. The normal requirement to obtain listed building consent will apply to any of these changes. Although we are conscious that these buildings will be affected in a way that, in an ideal world, we would not wish, we are doing everything that can be done to limit the impact and deal with listed buildings sympathetically.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 25 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 18 agreed to.

Clause 26

Ancient monuments

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

In many ways, this clause on ancient monuments is similar to clause 25, which was on listed buildings. Clause 26 introduces schedule 19, which disapplies or modifies controls on ancient monuments to allow the construction of phase 1 of HS2. The schedule allows a person authorised by the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England to enter on to land on which there is a scheduled monument to observe or advise on the carrying out of works to ensure the protection of such monuments. Similar provisions were included in the Crossrail Act 2008.

The promoter is in the process of agreeing a heritage agreement with Historic England in relation to ancient monuments such as Grim’s ditch in the Chilterns. The agreement will establish an approvals process to ensure that works subject to clause 26 and schedule 19 are carried out appropriately. If the Bill is passed, phase 1 of HS2 will have been approved by Parliament, and parliamentary approval will give all the consent necessary to construct the railway. Those are the powers that are being used in this way. Once again, all works must be done in accordance with the environmental minimum requirements.

[Andy McDonald]

In the same vein, the Minister makes a valid point. It is a bit of an eggs and omelettes situation so far as listed buildings are concerned, but perhaps there is greater scope to preserve ancient monuments or take them to another site. Is he able, now or at a later date, to give detail about how many monuments will be treated in that way? I am sure that it will be considered, given the involvement of Historic England, but has it been identified as a possibility in any particular instance? Could it be rolled out elsewhere?

[Mr Goodwill]

We certainly will be advised by Historic England on how we can address particular instances. Indeed, a heritage agreement will establish a process for approving how works will be carried out, which will include recording the features, protecting those features where they remain in situ but could be affected by the construction, and possibly reusing features. The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the Euston arch, which is no longer an ancient monument or a listed building, as it was destroyed, but he is right that a number of important elements of that structure could be reused. The Secretary of State is keen to reconstruct the Euston arch as a feature of the railway. I wondered whether we could have some sort of hologram instead, but he much prefers bricks, stone and mortar than something a bit more high-tech.

I hope that the Committee will be assured that we are conscious of the need, in the same way as with historic and listed buildings, to protect ancient monuments to ensure that the impact on our heritage, on our countryside and on features that we wish to preserve is at the forefront of our minds. We are working with organisations that are best placed to advise us on how best to do that.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 26 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 19 agreed to.

Clause 27

Burial grounds

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

[Mr Goodwill]

The clause relates to burial grounds, a subject close to my heart, given that I operate a green burial site on my farm and have around 400 people as permanent guests. The clause provides for the disapplication of laws concerning burial grounds and human remains. It also includes schedule 20, which outlines the process that the nominated undertaker—an unfortunate word to use in this regard—must follow in relation to the removal and re-interment or cremation of human remains, and the removal and replacement of monuments to the deceased. I understand that this is a sensitive subject, and that it is not just the railway that presents such issues; many construction projects around the country have unfortunately done so.

The clause disapplies ecclesiastical law for the purpose of construction in phase 1 of HS2. It also disapplies the law relating to burial grounds if the remains and any monument to the deceased have been dealt with in accordance with schedule 20. Similar provisions are included in the Crossrail Act 2008.

Three known burial grounds are affected by phase 1 service works: St James’s Gardens in Euston, St Mary’s Old Church in Stoke Mandeville and Park Street Gardens in Birmingham. In addition to those, four other burial grounds lie above the tunnelled route of HS2 and/or partially within the limits of land to be acquired or used. They are: North Acton cemetery in the London borough of Ealing; the Kensal Green Cemetery of All Souls in the Royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea; St Mary’s Roman Catholic cemetery in the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham; and St Giles’s church in Chalfont St Giles in Chiltern district.

Any human remains affected by phase 1 of HS2 will be treated with dignity, respect and care. Works impacting human remains and associated monuments are an emotive and complex matter, and HS2 Ltd and the promoter recognise their duty to address the concerns of individuals and communities. Two undertakings have been concluded in respect of the treatment of and approach to human remains and monuments, in consultation between the nominated undertaker, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, and the stakeholder, the Archbishops’ Council of the Church of England.

The nominated undertaker is required to develop a burial grounds, human remains and monuments procedure to implement the legal requirements of schedule 20. Where remains are less than 100 years old, schedule 20 requires a notice to be published in the local newspaper and displayed at the burial ground. Relatives have the right to remove and re-inter or cremate the remains themselves at the promoter’s expense.

If Members were part of the all-party parliamentary group on funerals and bereavement, as I am, they would know that this is quite a contentious issue already where municipal cemeteries are reusing land after 80 or 100 years. What is happening with HS2 is not happening in isolation; it is an issue around the country where the operators of burial grounds are reusing land, and it can sometimes be emotive for people whose relatives or friends are buried there.

For the purpose of clause 27 and schedule 20, a monument includes a tombstone or other memorial to the deceased, which includes a monument to one or more deceased persons. If the Bill is passed, phase 1 of HS2 will have been approved by Parliament, and parliamentary approval will therefore give the consent necessary to construct the railway. The limits to the powers in the clause and detailed controls in schedule 20 will apply. I commend clause 27 to the Committee.

[Andy McDonald]

A question occurred to me as the Minister was speaking about monuments. Is it within the contemplation of the promoter that people within a certain period going back will be able to have bodies re-interred and monuments moved? I am just thinking of the historical value of some of the monuments in our cemeteries. Has any thought been given to re-siting those monuments in another place? Those of us who have travelled to Poland with the Holocaust Educational Trust will have seen monuments that were retrieved from where they had been scattered and replaced where they could be given proper respect. Is it within the contemplation of the promoter to undertake that sort of exercise with these burial grounds?

[Mr Goodwill]

This is not a unique situation. As I already mentioned, numerous burial grounds are, unfortunately, being reused for other purposes—sometimes for re-burials. It is right that consideration should be given to how those memorials could be placed in a way that continues to provide a monument to that person. The rules in place for disinterment and reburial or cremation of those remains have been used on a number of occasions and will apply here. It is vital that we proceed in a sympathetic way and do everything possible to inform relatives and friends of people interred in this way. If necessary, I will take a personal interest in ensuring that relatives’ and friends’ views are respected and, where possible, responded to.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 27 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 20 agreed to.

Clause 28

Consecrated land

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

[Mr Goodwill]

On a similar theme, clause 28 applies to consecrated land. It provides that works authorised by the Bill may be carried out on consecrated land without being affected by restrictions and obligations imposed by ecclesiastical or other laws.

I have already mentioned that we have been in close conversation with the Church of England to ensure that it is aware of our intentions. Burial grounds are dealt with separately under schedule 20, which sets out how human remains are to be dealt with. Environmental minimum requirements control how the works are to be carried out. Similar provisions were included in the Crossrail Act 2008.

If the Bill is passed, phase 1 of HS2 will be approved by Parliament, and that will give the necessary consent to construct the railway. As I have said before, protection of consecrated land is provided in schedule 20 and the environmental minimum requirements, as always, will apply.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 28 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 29

Commons and open spaces

[Andy McDonald]

I beg to move amendment 16, in clause 29, page 12, line 28, at end insert—

“(d) The ownership of any public space which was previously owned by a public body and which is acquired by the nominated undertaker or the Secretary of State for Phase One purposes, and is subsequently returned to use as public space, must be transferred to a public body when that public space is no longer required for Phase One purposes.

“(e) For the purposes of subsection (d), a public body is a local authority, the Greater London Authority, Transport for London or any Metropolitan County Transport Authority.”

This amendment requires the ownership of any public space which was previously owned by a public body and which is acquired by the nominated undertaker or Secretary of State for Phase One purposes, and which is then subsequently returned to use as a public space, to be transferred to a public body when the space is no longer required.

Clause 29 would give the Secretary of State significant and wide-ranging powers over commons and open spaces. The amendment is another attempt from me to put some shackles on the Secretary of State to prevent him or her from overreaching those powers. The clause says:

“No enactment regulating the use of commons, town or village greens, open spaces or allotments, and no enactment specially regulating any land of any of those kinds, prevents or restricts”

the Secretary of State doing all manner of things. That includes

“(a) the doing of anything for Phase One purposes on land held by the Secretary of State or the nominated undertaker for those purposes,

(b) the exercise of any right of entry…or

(c) the doing of anything in exercise of any other power under this Act.”

So the Secretary of State has a pretty free hand to do as he or she pleases. In any other circumstances, there would be chaotic, loud and persistent protests at the infringement of such treasured spaces of public land.

We all recognise that the needs and demands of HS2 change all that. Therefore, the Secretary of State must have these powers. We do not object to that, but we would like to see those powers qualified. We are talking about a modest qualification regarding the return of land to a public authority, keeping that land out of the clutches of any potential private entity. We believe that would be entirely appropriate and welcomed by many people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

May I say at the outset that I intend to satisfy the hon. Gentleman completely? We are both in exact accord on this particular aspect. As he mentioned, Clause 29 refers to commons and open spaces and disapplies existing enactments that regulate the use of commons, town or village greens, open spaces or allotments. HS2 has made a number of commitments with regard to the effects of phase 1 of HS2 on open space, which are binding through the environmental minimum requirements. Where there are effects, we have sought to reach agreement with local authorities on how the effects will be mitigated. For example, commitments have been made to the London Borough of Ealing regarding the provision of new open space to mitigate the partial loss of Cerebos Gardens and to minimise land take from Victoria Gardens during construction.

On the assurance that the hon. Gentleman wishes me to give, let me be clear that as part of the HS2 land disposal policy, any public space acquired for HS2 that is to revert back to a public space and is to be disposed of will be offered to the original owning authority for their first refusal. That was always our intention and I make an absolute commitment that it will be the case. We will have cases in which privately held land is used temporarily during the construction process, and we intend to ensure that the private landowner has first refusal on taking that land back into their ownership.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the Secretary of State has significant and wide-ranging powers, so it is important to look at how the land that we cannot return will be replaced. I have already mentioned a couple of instances. The process has already been subject to the petitioning process and people will have had an opportunity to make their case and the Committee will have responded.

I will go further to suggest that the project will deliver additional public space and access. Some of the areas where we are carrying out environmental mitigation may be areas where we would wish the public to have access. There is a difficult balance to be struck between the needs of a local wildlife group that does not want dog walkers and disturbance to the wildlife in a particular nature conservation area, and the members of the public who probably would not understand how ground-nesting birds and other species could be affected by public access, but I am confident that there will be areas where public access is increased, and that will be to the benefit of everybody.

I cannot stress enough how strongly I absolutely understand what the hon. Gentleman has said. The land will be offered to the original owning authority for first refusal, so I hope his concerns have been allayed.

[Andy McDonald]

I can declare myself fully satisfied, or almost. I have only two issues. The Minister mentioned the instance in Ealing. If I have heard him correctly, that space will be not traded, but exchanged, and will repose in the local ownership of Ealing Borough Council. He has indicated that that is the case. If I have got that wrong, perhaps he will clarify that for me.

On the wider point of a local authority having held property effectively in trust for its citizens, if in the course of the next several years we see the nature, scope and range of local authorities change, and notwithstanding the fact that the original owning local authority may no longer exist as an entity, I assume that the property will be transferred to a similarly constituted successor local authority or other such public authority that would meet the requirements or description of being publicly owned. As we go through the devolution process, we may see increased powers for local boroughs or combined authorities, and the property rights may repose in bodies we have not yet decided on. Is the Minister able to reassure me about that?

[Mr Goodwill]

The hon. Gentleman is right that local government may be reformed. We may see more combined authorities or local authorities merging, or county and borough councils may become unitary in future. I can reassure him that whatever the structure of local government, the land will repose within a local government structure. A local parish or town council might wish to step in and take over the management of the land, which probably makes control of the land closer to the community. He should have no fears that, however local government changes might be enacted in future years, the basis of the clause as it relates to commons and open spaces is fundamental and will not change.

[Andy McDonald]

I am grateful to the Minister. Having been fully satisfied, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 30

Trees

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

[Mr Goodwill]

Having looked at historic buildings, historic sites, cemeteries and so on, we now move on to trees, which are every bit as important in terms of the heritage and the value of our countryside. Of course, we feel intensely disappointed when we have to impact upon ancient woodland. Indeed, much of the tunnelling that has been carried out as part of the environmental mitigation of this scheme is to protect ancient woodland.

Clause 30 disapplies protection for trees subject to tree preservation orders or in conservation areas, in relation to work to trees that is required for the purposes of constructing or maintaining phase 1 of HS2. Similar provisions were included in the Crossrail Act 2008, sections 198(1) and 202(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and in regulations made under section 202A of that Act. Section 211 of the Town and Country Planning Act deals with the:

“Preservation of trees in conservation areas”—

and sections of that Act are disapplied.

The clause refers to “tree works”. Perhaps I could clarify that this refers to works consisting of

“the removal, topping or lopping of a tree or the cutting back of the roots”.

Concerns may have been raised—and certainly have been with the environmental groups that I have met—about how we can continue to protect trees, particularly where excavations may affect the roots of trees, for example. I can reassure the Committee that all works must be done in accordance with the environmental minimum requirements. If the Bill is passed, phase 1 will have been approved by Parliament, and therefore the powers there will be the ones that are used to carry out the works to trees.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald]

I simply want to raise the issue of the undergrounding of power lines. I know that that has been raised in other places, in particular with regard to areas of natural beauty. This clause speaks to installation and diversion of overhead lines. Will the Minister enlighten the Committee about the extent to which any power lines are going to be put underground?

[Mr Goodwill]

The undergrounding of overhead power lines has been considered for those power lines affected by HS2 works already. It was concluded that it was neither an environmentally or economically beneficial solution. The removal of existing infrastructure anywhere within an area of outstanding natural beauty is not properly a matter for the HS2 Bill. Environmental mitigation and compensation has been provided by the project to compensate for the physical effects of the railway. It should be noted that the National Grid visual impact provision project initiated by Ofgem assessed national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty in England and Wales and reported in November 2014, identifying eight such protected sites where undergrounding might be beneficial. The Chilterns was not selected. I hope that that will clarify that we are not embarking on a widescale undergrounding of power lines as part of this project. We believe that that would go beyond the powers we would need to construct the railway.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 31 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 32

Water

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

The clause relates to street works and introduces schedule 24, which disapplies various controls relating to works in or near streets and highways. The schedule disapplies sections in the following Acts: the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1970, the Highways Act 1980, the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1986, the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 and the Traffic Management Act 2004.

The controls being disapplied include provisions that would require licence or approval from the relevant highways authority. For example, the need to obtain approval before certain works, such as the erection of scaffolding or the placing of a retaining wall near a highway, has been removed for works authorised by the Bill. A further example is that the power of highways authorities to direct when works that could affect traffic can take place will not apply for the authorised works. I must add that we are at all times engaging with communities and local authorities to ensure that we minimise the impact of our construction. For example, we will look at routes into which lorries can be channelled to minimise the effect.

All works, once again, must be done in accordance with the environmental minimum requirements. The highways authorities have certain protections. There are protective provisions for highways and traffic in part 1 of schedule 32. For example, in exercising the powers under the Bill, the nominated undertaker is required to have regard to the potential disruption of traffic that may be caused and seek to minimise such disruption as far as reasonably practical. I have been involved in negotiations to ensure we can, for example, construct temporary routes so trucks do not have an impact on local communities. We will, as far as possible, use a line of route for transported materials to prevent having an impact on local highways.

The approval of the highways authority is required for bridges carrying a highway over the railway or the railway over a highway, or tunnels within 8 metres of the surface of a carriageway. The nominated undertaker must not alter or disturb any highways authority property without the consent of the authority. They are required to make good or compensate the highways authority for any damage to a highway resulting from the construction of the authorised works. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Andy McDonald]

On the issue of disruption, will the Minister say something about the timing of works in all areas, whether rural or urban? I am thinking particularly about Euston, where people are going to be subjected to very considerable works for a lengthy period of time. Will there be protected periods during which works will not be conducted so that people will be guaranteed some semblance of peace? We may deal with that when we discuss lorries, but will that obtain for the street works?

[Mr Goodwill]

We are in negotiations with local highways authorities along the route to ensure that we minimise the impact on communities as we construct HS2. That might involve restrictions on the times when vehicles may be operated or, indeed, times when construction is not being carried out. We are absolutely sympathetic to the concerns that have been expressed and will ensure that, as far as possible, we can react to them. It is also about looking at the scheduling of the work. It is a difficult conundrum to know whether it is best to do an awful lot of work in a short time to minimise the time taken, or to string out the work over a longer period so that the frequency of trucks and, for example, the amount of disruption and dust is reduced.

Traffic management plans will be consulted on with local authorities, so they will have the opportunity to engage with us. Although we are disapplying some of the legislation, we will certainly be working closely with local authorities to ensure that the work is done as sympathetically as possible. Indeed, in some cases we have purchased properties because they will be unacceptably affected by construction. Although such properties do not need to be demolished for the construction of the railway, we understand that the level of disruption will be such that it would be neither sensible nor reasonable to expect people to remain in them. Of course, when the line is complete we will go to the market with those properties to ensure that the taxpayer gets as much money back as possible. We might even make a profit on some properties during the construction.

[Andy McDonald]

Putting aside the profit-making element of properties sold during the construction, if the Minister turns his attention to the logistics and layout at Euston, he will notice that some of the tower blocks to the north and east of the development will be within metres of the works. Even at this stage, is the Minister involved in any discussions to explore whether additional blocks might be vacated and people offered alternative accommodation? Are people pressing for that? When I visited the area last Friday I was horrified by the proximity of the development to some significant dwellings where people’s lives will undoubtedly be made very difficult indeed.

[Mr Goodwill]

It is certainly the case that, because of the impact of building the railway, we have procured some of the residential properties at Euston that the hon. Gentleman described as tower blocks. We went to look at a specific property with the leader of the council and I was very sympathetic to the concerns that were expressed. There might be an opportunity, perhaps during the periods of the highest construction activity, for people to be temporarily relocated from the relevant side of the building, but we concluded that it would not be in taxpayers’ best interests to procure the entire building and build additional provision for its residents.

Nevertheless, we understand the disruption. Where possible, particularly if, for example, people have disabilities so are in the properties 24/7, we will look at what we can do to try to mitigate any negative effects. HS2 Ltd is in discussions to find out how we can do something to temporarily alleviate such problems, where they exist.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 34 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 24 agreed to.

Clause 35

Noise

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

[Mr Goodwill]

This follows on neatly from our previous discussion about street works and relates specifically to lorries. Clause 35 introduces schedule 25, which contains provisions relating to the granting of permits for the use of heavy commercial vehicles on roads where there are heavy-lorry restrictions. Similar provisions were included in the Crossrail Act 2008. Local authorities have the power to make orders prohibiting and restricting the use of heavy goods vehicles on specified roads. Such an order is enforced in Greater London. Schedule 25 streamlines the process for the use of permits authorising lorries to use restricted roads for the purposes of the construction of phase 1 of HS2.

I can reassure the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, before he jumps up, that the measure will not completely remove the powers of local authorities in that regard. Permits will still be issued by the local authority. Schedule 25 will streamline the process for the issue of permits and includes an appeal procedure to the Secretary of State and an expedited process for the issue of emergency permits.

Part 1 of schedule 31 requires a nominated undertaker to

“have regard to the potential disruption of traffic which may be caused”

and to

“seek to minimise such disruption so far as is reasonably practicable.”

In addition, those matters are covered in the environmental minimum requirements and the highways sub-forum, a group of the relevant local highway authorities chaired by HS2 Ltd.

Incidentally, this morning we discussed the availability of the scope and methodology report, which the hon. Gentleman said he would like to see. I have brought him a copy of that weighty tome, which I hope will be his bedtime reading this evening. The report contains a number of the reassurances he sought. In terms of environmental mitigation, we are on top of everything and are ensuring that we recognise the impact this project will have on people. Where things can be done to limit that impact, they will be done.

[Andy McDonald]

Briefly, I want to return to the issue of the transporting of goods by lorries. The Minister will be aware that one of the most significant concerns of the people of Camden is the extra loading that will fall on to the roads around Euston station during construction. Can he give further detail about the commitment being made to transport and transfer out of the construction site as much of the goods and the spoil as possible by rail, as opposed to road? That, in itself, will be one of the most significant ways to mitigate the impact on the residents of Camden. If he will say something about that, I shall be extremely grateful.

[Mr Goodwill]

The hon. Gentleman talks about excavated material. Material from the tunnelling process—the majority of the line from Euston to Old Oak Common is a tunnel—will be transported out to the end of the tunnel; it will not be put on lorries at Euston and transported around there. We have a lot of experience of that in this country. We have, for example, the Queen Elizabeth line. We have a number of major projects being delivered from a transport infrastructure and housing and office point of view in London, so we have some experience of how to limit and mitigate the impacts of traffic.

As the Minister responsible for cycling, I am also aware of the risks caused to pedestrians and cyclists by tipper trucks. A number of accidents have happened where vehicles are turning left and cyclists have found themselves on the inside. The codes of practice that we have previously used will, I am sure, be used by the construction industry as it delivers the project, to ensure that we minimise that risk.

I understand that the hon. Gentleman proposes a new clause later in the Bill with regard to transporting material by rail. We can discuss that subject in more detail when we debate that new clause. I understand his concern to limit, where possible, the amount of material transported by road. When we have to transport goods and material by road, we must ensure that we do so in the way that is most sympathetic to the community, working with the local authority and, as we saw last week in Camden, having a location where people can go to get information about the sequencing of work. They will then know which roads might be closed or particularly used for trucks, so that they can plan their lives around that.

We are very conscious of the impact that this project will have during construction, but we are also very conscious of the long-term benefits for the Camden area in general and Euston in particular of the delivery of this transformational project, which will make Euston every bit as much a totemic station as King’s Cross and others around the country.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 35 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 25 agreed to.

Clause 36

Noise

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

[Mr Goodwill]

A theme is developing for what we are doing to limit, mitigate and manage the disruption for people in the areas in which construction is taking place. We are talking about not only the urban environment in Camden, but the rural locations where many people regard the peace and tranquillity of their area as central to their ability to enjoy their homes and community.

The clause introduces schedule 26, which modifies existing legislation on construction noise, giving a defence to the nominated undertaker against statutory nuisance claims in respect of works carried out in phase 1 of HS2. Unsurprisingly, similar provisions were included in the Crossrail Act 2008. Appeals against either the service by a local authority of a notice imposing noise requirements, or a local authority’s refusal to give consent under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 will be dealt with differently under the modifications that the schedule makes to noise legislation in respect of phase 1 work. They are to be determined by the Secretary of State or, if the parties agree, by arbitration, rather than in a magistrates court.

A defence is provided for failure to comply with a noise abatement notice in respect of noise caused by the construction, maintenance or operation of phase 1 of HS2 and cannot reasonably be avoided. An order cannot be made by a magistrates court in proceedings for statutory nuisance in respect of noise caused by phase 1 works if the works are being carried out in accordance with a notice or consent issued by the local authority under the 1974 Act, or if the noise cannot reasonably be avoided. In that regard, we are modifying certain sections of the 1974 Act and of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

The reason why we are making the modifications is that, given the scale of HS2 phase 1, it is appropriate for the Secretary of State or an arbitrator to determine appeals against refusal to give consent to work. If local authorities have given consent under the 1974 Act, the works may be carried out without impediment. Again unsurprisingly, all works must be done in accordance with the environmental minimum requirements.

On redress for people disturbed by noise from construction work associated with HS2 phase 1, the Secretary of State will ensure that a construction commissioner is appointed by the time that phase 1 construction begins. If individuals have a complaint during construction that cannot be resolved through the nominated undertaker’s complaints process, they will have the option to refer their complaint to the construction commissioner. Further information on the role of the commissioner is provided in information paper “G3: Construction Commissioner”. I assure the hon. Member for Middlesbrough that, should I still be the Minister at the time, I will take a keen interest in the appointment of someone who will be seen as a champion of the people affected, not as someone on the side of the project. That is important. Similarly, with the HS2 residents’ commissioner, we have a person appointed who will be seen as being on the side of residents and able to further their concerns effectively.

[Andy McDonald]

I thank the Minister for that, because it was extremely helpful, especially when he referred to the commissioner. I hope that later in our sittings we will get the chance to explore the independence of the commissioner in greater detail.

I note what the Minister said that was specific to the Control of Pollution Act 1974, but I wonder whether he shares my concern for the residents of Camden. Areas such as Drummond Street and Cobourg Street, which I had the privilege of visiting a few days ago, are remarkably quiet. There seems to be a misconception that people who live in central London are somehow well used to noise and bustle and therefore cannot be afforded the same sorts of facilities as those who live in quieter, more rural, pastoral circumstances.

Will the Minister give some thought to ensuring that some sort of parity of esteem between urban and rural areas filters through everything done in the name of HS2? There is no justification in my mind for people living in such areas as Cobourg Street—many of them elderly and disabled—having to suffer a level of noise that would not be tolerated under the scheme in rural areas. I do not know whether he can give me any assurances about that, but that is certainly something we are looking for.

[Mr Goodwill]

I am not sure whether I can give the hon. Gentleman any assurances or reassurances, but I can explain why we have a different compensation package for rural areas from the one for urban areas. Although property might be quite a long way from the railway in many rural areas, there may be nothing in between. In urban areas, someone could be 120 metres from the railway, but with two streets of houses in between.

Although the hon. Gentleman was in Drummond Street in Camden on a quiet day, it is a bustling urban environment, and the value of the houses there relates more to the central London location and the easy connections to other parts of the capital, whereas in more rural areas, people might have bought properties for the rural tranquillity. I understand why we need to have different compensation packages in place. I hope he realises that if one lives in a large metropolis, such as our wonderful capital, one does rather expect that there will be a lot of construction going on from time to time. That is not the case in many rural villages, where the green belt would be extended and where there may be areas of outstanding natural beauty, or where there may be conservation areas in the centre of the village. I think we are looking at a different situation, but that said, we do need to ensure that where people’s lives are disrupted, we make efforts to mitigate those effects where we can.

I have already talked about lorries, street works and so on, and we will do everything we can on that, working with local authorities to ensure that we limit the impact on people. As I have said, we have already purchased some properties that, although not required for the project, would be so detrimentally affected by the construction process that we felt it was not fair to allow those people to stay in their houses.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 36 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 26 agreed to.

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

Crossrail: Elizabeth Line

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Minister for advance sight of her statement. On my behalf and that of Her Majesty’s Opposition, I am in the happy position of being able very much to welcome the announcement. Crossrail has had cross-party support over its lengthy gestation period, and we all look forward to the considerable benefits that the new line will bring in the years ahead.

The naming of the line as the Elizabeth line is very much welcomed by Opposition Members. We have become used to the title Crossrail in recent decades. The renaming is a significant improvement on Cross London Rail Links Ltd, and Elizabeth is undoubtedly a much more elegant and fitting title for such an innovative and important transport infrastructure development, which will bring the benefit of better transport to millions of passengers from Reading in the west to Shenfield in the east. Given the enormous public commitment that has gone into developing the Crossrail brand, will the Minister give us an assurance that the Crossrail brand and livery will continue to be used?

I pay tribute to the last Labour Government, who took the Crossrail project forward in their 10-year transport plan, “Transport 2010”, in which they reasserted that an east-west rail link should go ahead. Alistair Darling, the then Secretary of State for Transport, announced that the Labour Government supported the new east-west Crossrail link and committed to bringing forward legislation to enable Crossrail to proceed, which was critical in turning the aspiration and ambition of Crossrail into reality.

One of the first ideas of the previous coalition Government, after they came into power in 2010, was to consider cancelling the Crossrail project altogether. Labour Members are delighted that not only is the project back on track, so to speak, but the Government’s conversion to supporting Crossrail has been so all-embracing that they have not only given the project their full backing but decided to dedicate it to Her Majesty. In that, they have our support.

We all expect Crossrail or the Elizabeth line to change the face of transport in London and the south-east, whatever its name. I would like to draw the Minister’s focus to a few points. Crossrail is largely on time and on budget, so can the Minister confirm that it will indeed open on schedule? Will she inform the House of what lessons have been learned from the successes of Crossrail that can be applied to High Speed 2? The Crossrail service will share the Great Western main line to Reading, but sadly the electrification programme has slipped and will cost more than was first estimated. Will the Minister take the opportunity to confirm to the House that the rescheduled electrification of the Great Western main line to Reading will be completed in time for the opening of the Elizabeth line?

I was delighted by the fact that after some 35 years of planning and development, Crossrail finally broke ground on 15 May 2009, when the Mayor of London and the then Transport Secretary, the noble Lord Adonis, sank the first pile into the docklands at the new Canary Wharf station. As we approach the conclusion of this most magnificent engineering undertaking, we remember the name of Crossrail with much affection and admiration. Although Crossrail is not dead, I wish the Elizabeth line a long and successful life.

[Claire Perry]

It is a delight to share, as we often do, a cross-party view—total agreement—on transport infrastructure. I would like to answer some of the hon. Gentleman’s questions.

Crossrail branding will apply for now, but the intention is that from December 2018 the Elizabeth line branding will come into force. The trains are currently under construction, as the hon. Gentleman knows, and it is not expensive to repaint and rebrand them, so I do not think that there are any costs associated with this welcome decision.

The hon. Gentleman asked about lessons that have been learned from Crossrail and that can be applied to Network Rail. I would argue that there are lessons that can be applied more broadly. One thing that has worked well is the fact that the project has stuck to its guns—stuck to its knitting. It has resisted demands for deviations from the route and proceeded with its original plan, which it has delivered very effectively. Crucially, it has blazed a trail in engagement with communities who are affected by the work. I have been surprised, when I have visited stations, by how little the people around the stations realise that the work is going on. That is a tribute to the care and consideration behind that engagement. Another enormously important factor has been the engagement of the supply chain. The majority of supply contracts are let to companies outside the south-east and, in many cases, to small and medium- sized enterprises. Those are two important lessons for the future.

The hon. Gentleman is right to talk about bringing the project in on time and on budget. I emphasise that that is part of the project’s careful planning.

On the question about the vital link between the Crossrail line and the Great Western main line to the west, I am happy to confirm that that work is on time and on budget, and it will absolutely be in place to ensure that the line runs. It is an enormous priority for all of us to ensure that the first trains can run from December 2018.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald]

No.

[Claire Perry]

Well, the hon. Gentleman corrects me, but I am delighted to say that this is now happening. Lord Adonis now heads the Government’s National Infrastructure Commission, which has been tasked with looking at—this idea again has cross-party support and consensus—how we can best spend the ongoing investment in infrastructure for the benefit of the British economy.

Great Western Railway Routes

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Monday 8th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) on securing this debate on an important subject. There has been many an excellent contribution. I agree with the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) that the Great Western railway is more than just a transport system; it is vital to the areas that it serves, which is why it is so important that the Government deliver on their promises on electrification and improved resilience as a matter of urgency.

As was identified by my hon. Friend the Member for the Crown principality of Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), the recent flooding in much of the country has further highlighted the importance of ensuring that our railways are resilient in extreme weather conditions, which we are witnessing with increased frequency. Commuters on the Great Western railway know that only too well. The breach of the Dawlish sea wall in 2014 forced the closure of the line for two months, creating significant disruption. We saw the rails hanging in the air like a rope bridge. I, too, applaud the heroic efforts of the engineers and workers of Network Rail who brought the repair to a speedy conclusion.

A report published in the Journal of Transport Geography on the likely future impact of weather on trains travelling to and from the south-west predicted that up to a third of rail services could be disrupted over the next 100 years. That report, which was described by Network Rail as “key” to long-term developments, underlines the importance of improving resilience in the region.

The Labour party agreed with the Prime Minister when he said that the Government “needed to find answers” because the Dawlish disaster of 2014 “must not happen again”, but his rhetoric has yet to be matched by action. Despite it being said that “money is no object”, the Peninsula Rail Task Force—we have heard a lot about that this evening—has been examining how to improve the south-west’s rail network following the storm damage, but is currently unable to complete its final report because funding is unavailable.

In a letter to the Secretary of State, Tim Jones, chairman of the Devon and Cornwall Business Council, said that the south-west would be at a “severe disadvantage” should no funding be found to complete those studies. If we are to accept what the Prime Minister told the House when he said that “money was no object”, and if we are to believe that the Government are serious about making our railways resilient to extreme weather conditions, they must ensure that funding is available to complete the report. It is of paramount importance that resilience is improved, and the Government should give their backing to the report so that the task force can get on with delivering a railway that is to be relied on come rain or shine.

A number of suggestions have been made for an additional route to Dawlish, including by my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), and by Labour South West, including Tudor Evans, the leader of Plymouth City Council. However, the Prime Minister appeared to prejudge any fair assessment of the options when he backed a new Okehampton railway route as the “most resilient” alternative to the vulnerable Dawlish route, saying that the UK is a “wealthy country” that should be making long-term investments in rail, and that the Okehampton line was worth a “long, hard look”. Will the Minister guarantee that all options for an additional route in the south-west will be assessed on a fair basis? Will she also reassure the House that the funding that the Prime Minister promised will be made available, and that no decision has yet been taken on the route that an avoiding line might take?

So far the Government’s track record on delivering the Great Western main line is poor. Electrification will be delivered late and cost substantially more than initially estimated. Labour committed to electrification of the Great Western main line in 2009, but the estimated cost of that has escalated dramatically since Network Rail made its first assessment in 2011.

[Mrs Sheryll Murray]

The hon. Gentleman has criticised this Government’s track record. Will he enlighten the House about the previous Labour Government’s track record on investing in the Great Western railway line?

[Andy McDonald]

I will happily do so. Let me remind the hon. Lady of the pieces that we had to pick up when coming into government after the disaster of Railtrack and the deaths that were caused as a result of the privatisation of the railways. We do not want to hear any more about that—the investment was significant.

[Mrs Murray]

rose—

[Andy McDonald]

I have given way. Mark Carne, Network Rail’s chief executive, told Members of Parliament in October that the estimate for the project had been £874 million in January 2013, and £1.5 billion in September 2014. He said that because of “inadequate planning”, the cost of electrification could now reach £2.8 billion.

The upgrades that were expected to have been completed by 2018 are significantly behind schedule. Under the original plan, the Reading to Didcot route should already have been completed, and routes to Oxford and Bristol were on schedule to be completed this year. Didcot is now expected to be two years late, in 2017, and Newbury and Oxford three years late, in 2018 and 2019 respectively. Bristol Temple Meads will not have electric trains until 2020, and the east-west rail link from Oxford to Bletchley is delayed until the early 2020s.

Some of those improvements have been delayed by up to four years, significantly affecting commuters who rely on the Great Western line, as well as on the towns and cities that the line serves. Progress on the Great Western electrification has been hampered by this Government putting electrification on hold after the 2010 election, and not fully confirming the project until July 2012, meaning that essential planning work was delayed. The Office of Rail Regulation has said that because a number of major enhancements were added to control period 5 at a relatively late date, several important projects were started in 2014 without being fully assessed. At the start of control period 5, £7 billion of the £12 billion of enhancement spending had not been signed off by the regulator. Calvin Lloyd, Network Rail’s head of long-term planning and funding said:

“There are cost pressures across the whole portfolio of enhancement projects, which should not be a surprise to anyone given that we did not have the level of confidence we might have wished at the start.”

It is the taxpayer, commuters and those who rely on Great Western who will suffer the consequences of poor cost estimation and poor planning. If the Great Western tracks are not electrified according to schedule, the Department will be liable to pay compensation to the private consortium that is delivering the new generation of electric intercity express programme trains. The Department for Transport is considering converting electric IEP trains so they can run on diesel, at an unclear cost to the taxpayer. They may not be able to reach speeds of 125 mph, raising fears that some journeys could actually slow down, compared with today, if electrification is delayed.

The Government’s plans for replacing uncomfortable and inaccessible Pacer trains on branch lines in the south-west are dependent on the success of the electrification programme. If the Great Western electrification project is significantly delayed, passengers in the south-west could endure vehicles for years that the Government have, quite rightly, said are unacceptable in the north of England.

Poor planning and the premature announcement of projects have left commuters uncertain of the future of the Great Western, yet the Government were repeatedly warned that rising costs could lead to some projects being delayed or cancelled. Labour first raised problems with the Great Western main line electrification programme in May 2014, just weeks into the start of the investment period, and challenged the Government to explain which electrification projects will be delayed or cancelled as a consequence of rising costs. Those concerns were echoed by the Transport Committee, which warned in January 2015:

“We are concerned that key rail enhancement projects—such as electrification in the North and North West of England—have been announced by Ministers without Network Rail having a clear estimate of what the projects will cost, leading to uncertainty about whether the projects will be delivered on time, or at all.”

Worse still, commuters were kept in the dark by the Government throughout this period. The chief executive of Network Rail confirmed:

“In mid-March 2015, Network Rail informed the Department for Transport that decisions may need to be made in the coming months about the deferral of certain schemes.”

However, Ministers in the Department are still refusing to say whether they were informed before the election of the plans to defer major schemes. It is now clear that the agreed work could never have been delivered within the agreed budget and timeframe. Yet Network Rail, the Department for Transport and the regulator, the Office of Rail and Road, signed up to the plans anyway, resulting in a great deal of unnecessary uncertainty and confusion. It is passengers and the public who pay the price for such failures, and serious questions must be asked of the Government about how such a shambles was allowed to occur on their watch.

It will be a great relief to passengers reliant on the Great Western that track upgrades will arrive late rather than never. We on the Labour Benches encourage the Government properly to examine their adequacy and the adequacy of Network Rail in budgeting, planning and delivering such programmes in future. It is those issues that should be focused on, so it is an issue of concern that Nicola Shaw, who is heading the Department’s review of the future of Network Rail, has said that privatisation of Network Rail is an option that is on the table. The Government should be asking how better to deliver major projects such as rail electrification in the future, not looking to devote time to managing yet further privatisation and fragmentation of our national rail infrastructure.

[Mr Bradshaw]

Is my hon. Friend aware that, according to the Financial Times, Great Western also raised objections to the possibility of privatising Network Rail, saying it would fragment the system and remove the advantage Network Rail has currently in being able to buy in bulk—and therefore cheaply—on behalf of the taxpayer?

[Andy McDonald]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is a matter of huge concern that the critical mass of Network Rail is now under threat from this review. It makes no sense whatever to break up a national network. We all remember the days of the private enterprise adventure into our country’s rail infrastructure—and the consequences that flowed therefrom. I would therefore encourage Members strenuously to resist the proposals for the privatisation of Network Rail.

--- Later in debate ---

[Claire Perry]

We have not been asked to put in a penny. Great Western Railway has funded the study, as part of our negotiations with it. No Government money was ever being put into these studies. We stood by to make sure the studies happened—

[Andy McDonald]

Stood by!

[Claire Perry]

No, we were prepared to backstop any shortfall, but Great Western Railway agreed to fund this small part of the overall plan. We are talking about £200,000 to £300,000, as opposed to the £3.5 million Network Rail has already spent. I hope the right hon. Member for Exeter, just for once, is going to crack a smile and welcome something. Go on! Just welcome something the Government have done. No? I think we will move on.

The Government are committed to the region, and these studies will go ahead. This is a vital region of the country for transport investment and economic growth, and I am delighted, as both a south-west MP and the rail Minister, to confirm that those studies will go ahead.