High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill

Cheryl Gillan Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Andy McDonald]

No, I am going to move on.

We have heard the Prime Minister, the Chancellor, the Secretary of State for Transport and others speak in glowing terms about how High Speed 2, when completed, will be a proud national achievement, and I completely agree with that. The scale of the project, the amount of talent that will be utilised in its design and construction, and the dedication over the years ahead will be a mark of pride, and represent a proud feat of British engineering and ingenuity.

It is my contention that if we, as a nation, are good enough to build a world-class high-speed railway, then we are good enough to run it, too. From the initial privatisation to the Government’s re-franchising of the east coast main line, Tory rail policy has always been far too focused on its “private good, public bad” ideology. However, new clause 20 would not require the sort of Damascene conversion that we witnessed from the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) earlier this week. It asks only that the Government keep an open mind. New clause 20 would allow, but not require, High Speed 2 passenger services to be run in the public sector. A similar clause was part of the Crossrail Act 2008, leaving open the option to run passenger services in the public sector. Indeed, we have worded this new clause so that it is as similar as possible to section 26 of the 2008 Act.

May I remind the Minister and the House that the Conservative party did not reject the idea of at least keeping an open mind about who might be the best operator to run Crossrail—or the Elizabeth line—in future years, and it would be disappointing to see the Conservative party move from a position of pragmatism to one of sheer ideology. It would be talking Britain down to suggest that private companies and the state-owned rail companies of the Netherlands, France and Germany are able to run successfully passenger services on our railways, but we ourselves are not. I hope that the Government do not have such a pessimistic view of our capabilities as a nation and will vote in favour of new clause 20.

[Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)]

It was disheartening to hear the Minister dismiss my amendments in this group before hearing what I had to say, although I am grateful to him for acknowledging that over the past six years I have fought for my constituents and their rights and interests in the face of opposition from many people outside this House. My new clauses in this group are practical and sensible and will, I think, assist my constituents and others up and down the line.

New clause 1 is about local authority finance. Local authorities the length of the HS2 route have received no extra help to support their work on this major infrastructure project. The burden on my two local councils, Buckinghamshire County Council and Chiltern District Council, has been enormous, but the new clause would also apply to other councils.

Buckinghamshire County Council is naturally concerned that without central Government intervention and help its costs will continue to escalate. If the last six years are anything to go by, they certainly will. The county council’s outturn figure for 2015-16 is nearly £520,000 for costs relating to the legal petitioning process, engagement with HS2 Ltd and getting the best deal for Buckinghamshire residents. The council has just submitted the recharge to HS2 Ltd on the current memorandum of understanding and can recoup barely £10,000 for the last year. Why must taxpayers in Chesham and Amersham and elsewhere not only pay for this railway to be built, but pay again through their council tax for their local authorities to carry out inescapable pre and post-construction work for which they get very little help or none at all? Over the past six years, Chiltern District Council has spent nearly £1.18 million on complying with HS2 requirements —a huge amount for a district authority.

Councils have paid out literally millions in the past six years. The costs will only grow during the construction phase and there is no guarantee that local authorities will be fully recompensed. They would appreciate a clear, legally enforceable commitment from the Government that the extra burden will be recognised, particularly in the light of the local government finance settlement. My county, Buckinghamshire, was heavily affected by the settlement. It was only through myself and other Buckinghamshire MPs making very strong representations that we got some increased moneys for our local authorities. If accepted, new clause 1 would ensure security for our local authorities along the whole route where service agreements do not provide additional funding, received by the end of the year. The Minister should appreciate that I am asking for statutory and legally enforceable requirements because there is great distrust of the process so far. I think it is essential to enshrine the provision in statute, so that it is legally enforceable.

New clause 2 is designed to give statutory enforceability to the Department for Transport’s intention to reimburse local authorities for highways repair costs consequential on the construction of HS2.

[Sir Henry Bellingham]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Select Committee pressed HS2 hard on reimbursement to highways authorities regarding damage to verges, culverts, drains, inspection covers and so on, and the company gave a very positive response? New clause 2 is a belt-and-braces provision. Does she agree that HS2 has already given quite firm commitments?

[Mrs Gillan]

I appreciate the work my hon. Friend did on the Select Committee. He is correct that there are undertakings, but they are not enforceable and I am afraid that HS2 does not have a good track record of either keeping good records and accurate information or of following through on its promises, hence my decision to table the new clauses. If HS2 is in good faith going to adhere to those undertakings, it should have no fear of their being put in the Bill. That is why I do not think it is unreasonable to expect the new clauses to be accepted.

[John Redwood]

My right hon. Friend might like to point out that there are 65 pages of road and footpath closures scheduled in the Bill and 67 pages of associated works to existing roads, railways and utilities. The work is massive in scale and, obviously, all those involved will need compensation.

[Mrs Gillan]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Perhaps that shows the scale of the battle that has been going on for six years, in which people are trying to defend their environment and locality or, if they cannot have the whole project cancelled, at least to get the best possible deal for their locality.

[Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)]

In my constituency, we have had significant problems in engaging with HS2—and not just me as the Member of Parliament; the county council and the district council have simply not had their letters answered. That gives us no assurance that HS2 will engage in a timely fashion with those who have to use the roads every day.

[Mrs Gillan]

My hon. Friend makes a point that is entirely familiar to me and many other people along the line of the route. That is why I want these not unreasonable assurances to be put in the Bill.

[Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

It seems to me rather strange that the Government will not accept the amendments. The history of statutory undertakers doing work on highways shows without any difficulty the shoddy restoration that takes place afterwards. In this case, we are talking of a massive project involving many miles of roads that will require repair. My right hon. Friend may agree that the assurances being given ought to be reinforced by statutory powers.

[Mrs Gillan]

Any addition to my right hon. and learned Friend’s point would be otiose. He is absolutely correct.

[Andrew Bridgen]

May I take my right hon. Friend back to the point about HS2 liaising with the public? Is she aware of the damning ombudsman’s report that came out last night, which stated that HS2 regarded consultation as merely a box-ticking exercise?

[Mrs Gillan]

I drew the House’s attention to that report in a point of order. The report is appended to today’s debate, but of course there was no possibility of tabling amendments that referred to that report in an attempt to alter HS2’s behaviour.

New clause 2 is designed to ensure that all local authorities are properly compensated for any damage to roads as a result of HS2 constructions. As others have confirmed, that vital safeguard should be added to the Bill. The Secretary of State, who is now in his place on the Front Bench, visited my constituency earlier this month and saw at first hand some of the problems that my constituents face. I am grateful for that visit. He also saw the problems we have in Buckinghamshire with potholes. I am particularly concerned about the roads in and around Great Missenden. Quite by chance, my right hon. Friend witnessed maintenance works being carried out on those roads during his visit.

Buckinghamshire County Council highways authority estimates that it will spend about £7.5 million on pothole-related maintenance over the next five years. That figure takes no account of patching, resurfacing, drainage, road sweeping and other related costs. I believe that considerable additional costs will arise from the large number of heavy goods vehicles pounding their way up and down some of Buckinghamshire’s fragile roads. Local authorities may well be reimbursed for reasonable costs, but what are reasonable costs? I want them to be reimbursed fully and I want that to be enshrined in statute, to make sure that the provision is both sufficient and justiciable.

New clause 3 is intended to increase the amounts allocated by the Department for Transport to the business and local economy fund and the community and environment fund from £30 million to £150 million. The £30 million originally announced for those funds to assist those affected by HS2 has been felt across the board to be meagre and insufficient, especially as the funding is intended to cover the entire route of phase 1. The Select Committee acknowledged the significant shortfall and the Government’s response to its final report stated that the sum would be increased to £40 million. I contend that that is not enough. The impacts of the project will be long standing and severe for the environment, local authorities and communities. Through new clause 3, I propose that the funding be increased to £150 million to give those affected the compensation they deserve and to ensure that adverse effects are minimised.

[Sir William Cash]

Both of us have signed new clause 33 on compensation by reference to a property bond. I wanted to put that on the record. My right hon. Friend is doing a great job, and I do not want to take up the time of the House to refer to new clause 33, knowing that she agrees with me.

[Mrs Gillan]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and grateful for the support that I have received from colleagues across the piece.

On new clause 3, there is currently no information on how the funds will be divided, which areas will be prioritised or how the money could be spent. There is also no clarification of whether, for example, the funds to be allocated will include the moneys already allocated to the Colne valley. Will those come out of this funding envelope? There has been a suggestion that the money will be delivered locally through local enterprise partnerships, but that would be most unsuitable. In Buckinghamshire, for example, we have two overlapping LEPs. How would the money be administered? I think it should be kept separate from the LEPs and genuinely given to local groups so that they can decide how best to distribute the funds. I urge the Minister both to increase the funds and to provide further details on how they will be administered.

The last new clause to which I shall speak in this group is new clause 4, which deals with compensation. All the MPs who have constituencies along the route will know that compensation issues have caused great worry and stress to our constituents, and many of the recommendations of the HS2 hybrid Bill Select Committee, although welcome, have yet to translate into changes to the schemes. The Select Committee’s report in February 2016 stated that

“the Government said that it would work to implement a revised process for the valuation of properties for ‘Need to Sell’ that will allow more local valuers to be used”.

That review was promised for autumn last year, but we are still waiting.

The Department for Transport’s response to the Select Committee report is silent on the valuation point, and although a response was promised before Third Reading, when I last looked I had not yet received that. I may be wrong—HS2 tends to slip out its documents just in time for debates, which I think is poor practice. In this case such poor practice is affecting people’s lives. Implementing a fair valuation process for property owners who are receiving unacceptably low offers from HS2 is of paramount importance.

I still have a large number of constituents who have been negotiating with HS2 for months to get a fair price for their property, and I know from colleagues that it is a similar story up and down the route. I have been appalled at the treatment of individuals, who have had to employ expensive lawyers even to get timely and rational answers from those employed by HS2 or from HS2 itself. My colleagues and I have raised these points for years, yet there continues to be a litany of errors from HS2. There have been internal emails that are rude and disrespectful about constituents. The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee report published earlier today refers to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman report, which accused HS2 of being guilty of maladministration. I believe that that has characterised the way in which HS2 has dealt with people who have lost their houses, their businesses and their land.

[Victoria Prentis]

One of my greatest concerns about going forward without the Select Committee, which has been of enormous help to those of us whose constituents have been affected, is that there is nobody to help us mediate with HS2 Ltd and to encourage the company to respond to us in a timely fashion. There is no transparency about the way it does business. Does my right hon. Friend have any ideas to help us with this?

[Mrs Gillan]

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) said today from the Opposition Dispatch Box that transparency would be the watchword for HS2. I agree with my hon. Friend—transparency has not been the watchword for HS2. Right from the beginning, when the Major Projects Authority’s reports were withheld from this House and from the Select Committee that considered the Bill, there has been the reverse of transparency. That is what is so distressing about this project; it could have been handled so much better. It has let many people down.

Finally—I know that others want to speak—new clause 4 is designed to ensure that valuers with local knowledge are included on the HS2 panel, and that all compensation applications are responded to substantively within 10 weeks to avoid long periods of uncertainty for property owners on the route.

I started by saying that I was disappointed that the Minister dismissed my amendments before even hearing what I had to say today, so I am not expecting any positive response. But I have learned always to walk in hope, even on the impossible project of HS2, and I invite the Minister to accept my amendments today and add them to the Bill, thereby showing that he has the respect that I believe this House should have for the people whose lives are affected so drastically by HS2.

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

High Speed 2 is extremely important and is necessary to expand capacity on a railway that is ever increasing in popularity. Where communities are adversely affected, they should be treated properly and there should be adequate compensation. The amount of that compensation is clearly a matter for judgment, and some of the amendments today address that.

It is exceedingly important, too, that the potential for jobs and economic development created by the building of High Speed 2 is maximised. That was one of the key points that the Transport Committee emphasised when we first looked at High Speed 2 back in 2011. We have published four reports on that since then. Back in 2011 the point considered in new clause 19 was emphasised. We supported High Speed 2 but highlighted the importance of maximising the job opportunities—jobs in the construction of the high-speed network or jobs opened up by economic development in the areas through which HS2 passes—and regional development. I am extremely pleased to see new clause 19 and pleased it has all-party support, because of the focus it puts on jobs.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Mrs Gillan]

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 7—Obligation to plant trees—

“(1) The nominated undertaker must publish plans to plant the Referenced Trees within the Construction Period and make arrangements for their maintenance for a period of 10 years from the commencement of services on Phase 1 of HS2.

(2) The nominated undertaker must provide an annual report to Parliament which shall specify—

(a) the progress made on planting of the Referenced Trees,

(b) the number and species of trees planted since the publication of the previous report,

(c) the position of the trees, groups of trees or woodlands, as the case may be, by reference to a map,

(d) the adequacy of arrangements to manage Referenced Trees which have been planted previously.

(3) In subsections (1) and (2) “Referenced Trees” shall mean the trees planted to meet the commitment of two million additional trees to be situated adjacent to Phase 1 of HS2 as set out in the environmental statement referenced in Clause 66(4). In subsection (1) Construction Period shall mean the period between commencement of the Scheduled Works and the commencement of operational service on Phase One of High Speed 2.”

New clause 8—Office of the HS2 Adjudicator—

“(1) There is to be a body corporate known as the Office of the HS2 Adjudicator hereinafter referred to as “the Adjudicator”.

(2) Schedule [Adjudicator: status and funding] (which makes further provision about the Adjudicator) shall have effect.

(3) The Adjudicator has the functions conferred on it by or under any enactment.

(4) Those functions include—

(a) enforced functions

(b) inspection functions,

(c) information functions.

(5) The main objective of the Adjudicator in performing its functions is to protect the natural environment and communities impacted by the construction and operation of Phase 1 of High Speed 2.

(6) The Adjudicator is to perform its functions for the general purpose of securing—

(a) the minimisation of adverse impacts on communities and the natural environment situated in locations affected by the construction or operation of Phase 1 of HS2,

(b) the provision of additional mitigation measures in the event the environmental impacts of the operation of HS2 are worse than as set out in the environmental statement prepared in accordance with section 66(4).”

New clause 9—Matters to which the Adjudicator must have regard—

“(1) In performing its functions the Adjudicator must have regard to—

(a) the views expressed by or on behalf of the members of the public or organisations about the environmental impacts of constructing Phase One of HS2,

(b) the views expressed by people affected by the construction and operation of Phase One of HS2,

(c) the views expressed by local authorities about the impact of constructing and operating Phase One of HS2 in their areas,

(d) the need to protect the natural environment and minimise environmental impacts arising from the construction and operation of Phase One of HS2,

(e) the need to ensure that any action by the Adjudicator in relation to its areas of responsibility is proportionate to the risks against which it would afford safeguards and is targeted only where it is needed,

(f) any developments in approaches to monitoring and mitigating environmental impacts arising from the construction or operation of Phase One of HS2,

(g) best practice among persons performing functions comparable to those of the Adjudicator (including the principles under which regulatory action should be transparent, accountable and consistent).

(2) In performing its functions the Adjudicator must also have regard to such aspects of government policy as the Secretary of State may direct.”

New clause 10—Statement on stakeholder involvement—

“(1) The Adjudicator must publish a statement describing how it proposes to—

(a) discharge its oversight requirements to ensure environmental outcomes reflect the forecasts set out in the environmental statement referenced in section 66(4),

(b) promote engagement and discussion with the nominated undertaker and impacted communities concerning adequate levels of mitigation,

(c) ensure that proper regard is had to views expressed by non-government organisations and local authorities concerning the environmental impacts arising from the construction and operation of Phase One of High Speed 2,

(d) arrange for accurate regular reporting of environmental impacts arising from the construction of the scheduled works and operation of Phase One of High Speed 2.

(2) The Adjudicator may from time to time revise the statement and must publish any revised statement.

(3) Before publishing the statement (or any revised) statement the Adjudicator must consult such persons it considers appropriate.”

New clause 11—Compliance with requirements—

“(1) The Adjudicator will keep under review compliance by HS2 Ltd, the nominated undertaker and its contractors with the standards detailed in the environmental statement, Environmental Minimum Requirements and the Code of Construction Practice and the assurances and undertakings provided by the Secretary of State on HS2 and Information Papers prepared by HS2 Ltd (collectively the “environmental documents”).

(2) If it appears to the Adjudicator that any person has failed or is likely to fail to comply with any requirements for which he is responsible set out in the environmental documents relating to the construction or operation of Phase One of High Speed 2, the Adjudicator (hereinafter referred to in this section as the “relevant requirements”) may address to that person an enforcement notice.

(3) An enforcement notice comes into effect 36 hours after it is published on the website of the Adjudicator.

(4) The Adjudicator must also transmit an electronic version to HS2 Ltd, any nominated undertaker or contractor to the aforementioned, or local authority who has supplied to the Adjudicator an email address for this purpose.

(5) An enforcement notice must also be placed on a hard copy register maintained at such a location as the Adjudicator may determine.

(6) An enforcement notice is a notice in writing—

(a) specifying the matters which appears to the Adjudicator to constitute a failure to comply with the relevant requirements set out in the environmental documents, and

(b) prohibiting the recurrence or occurrence of those matters and requiring the person to whom it is addressed to carry out any specified works or take any steps which the Adjudicator considers necessary to ensure compliance with the relevant requirements detailed in the environmental documents.

(7) Where any person suffers loss or damage as a result of any matter specified in an enforcement notice, whether that loss or damage occurs before or after the service of the enforcement notice, he may recover damages for that loss or damage in a civil court from the person on whom the enforcement notice was served

(8) It shall be a defence to any claim under subsection (7) above to prove that the matters alleged to constitute non compliance have not occurred or that they do not constitute non compliance with the relevant requirements

(9) If any person fails to comply with the requirements of an enforcement notice he shall be guilty of an offence.

(10) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be punishable on summary conviction by a fine not exceeding £20,000 and on conviction on indictment to a fine.

(11) It shall be a defence to any criminal proceedings under subsection (9) claim to prove that—

(a) the matters alleged to constitute non compliance have not occurred,

(b) that they do not constitute non compliance with the relevant requirements or that any required works or steps were not necessary to achieve compliance with the relevant requirements or

(c) that despite due diligence he was unaware of the provision of the notice.

(12) Where an offence under any provision of this Act committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to have been attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate or a person who was purporting to act in any such capacity, he as well as the body corporate shall be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.”

New clause 12—Inspections and studies—

“(1) The Adjudicator may for the purposes of its regulatory functions carry out inspections of—

(a) the carrying on of the Scheduled Works, or

(b) the operation of any train travelling on Phase One of HS2.

(2) The Adjudicator may undertake or promote comparative or other studies designed to enable it to make recommendations—

(a) for improving sustainability and effectiveness in any activity mentioned in subsection (3), or

(b) for improving the management of environmental outcomes arising from the operation of Phase One of HS2.

(3) Those activities are—

(a) the undertaking of construction activity by HS2 Ltd or a nominated undertaker,

(b) the making of arrangements by HS2 Ltd or a nominated undertaker for the purpose of environmental mitigation.

(4) The Adjudicator may also undertake or promote studies designed to enable it to prepare reports as to the impact of—

(a) the operation of any particular statutory provisions, or

(b) any directions or guidance given by a Minister of the Crown (whether pursuant to any such provisions or otherwise),

on economy, efficiency and effectiveness in an activity mentioned in subsection (3)(a) or (b).

(5) The Adjudicator must undertake or promote a study falling within subsection (2) or (4) if the Secretary of State so requests.

(6) The Adjudicator must publish—

(a) any recommendations made by it under subsection (2) and

(b) the result of any studies undertaken or promoted under that section.

(7) The Secretary of State may, after consulting the Adjudicator, by regulations make provisions as to the procedure to be followed in respect of the making of representatives to the Adjudicator before the publication under subsection (2) of any recommendations or the result of any studies.”

New clause 13—Power to require documents, information returns etc.—

“(1) The Adjudicator may require any person mentioned in subsection (2) to provide it with any information, documents, records or other items which the Adjudicator considers it necessary or expedient to have for the purposes of any of its regulatory functions.

(2) The persons are—

(a) HS2 Limited,

(b) a nominated undertaker,

(c) any contractor appointed by HS2 Limited or a nominated undertaker.

(3) The power in subsection (1) to require the provision of information, documents or records includes, in relation to information, documents or records kept by means of a computer, power to require the provision of the information, documents or records in legible form.

(4) The Adjudicator may require a nominated undertaker to make a return to the Adjudicator at such intervals as may be prescribed.

(5) Provision may be made in such requirements as to the contents of the return and the period in respect of which and date by which it is to be made.”

New clause 14—Information and advice—

“(1) The Adjudicator must keep the Secretary of State informed about the following matters—

(a) the environmental impact of constructing Phase 1 of HS2 and whether such impacts reflect the forecasts detailed in the Environmental Statement;

(b) the impact on communities and the natural environment arising from the construction and operation of HS2;

(c) the carrying on of regulated activities.

(2) The Adjudicator may at any time give the Secretary of State advice on anything connected with those matters.

(3) When requested to do so by the Secretary of State, the Adjudicator must give the Secretary of State such advice or information in connection with a matter mentioned in subsection (1) as may be specified in the request.”

New clause 15—Provision of copies of registers—

“(1) Subject to subsection (3), the Adjudicator must secure that copies of any register kept for the purposes of this Act are available at its offices for inspection at all reasonable times by any person.

(2) Subject to subsections (3) and (4), any person who asks the Adjudicator for a copy of, or an extract from, a register kept for the purposes of this Chapter is entitled to have one.

(3) Regulations may provide that subsections (1) and (2) do not apply—

(a) in such circumstances as may be prescribed, or

(b) to such parts of a register as may be prescribed.

(4) A fee determined by the Adjudicator is payable for the copy or extract except—

(a) in prescribed circumstances, or

(b) in any case where the Adjudicator considers it appropriate to provide the copy or extract free of charge.”

New clause 16—Speed and Noise Limitation—

“(1) No person shall drive or cause or permit any train to proceed at a speed greater than 300 km/h on track forming part of Phase One of High Speed 2 except to the extent that the maximum peak noise level arising from train passage, when measured according to a procedure defined by the Secretary of State on the basis of representative train passages and locations, does not exceed 60dBA at any point further than 200m from the centre line of the railway.

(2) If any person fails to comply with the requirements of subsection (1) he shall be guilty of an offence.

(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be punishable on summary conviction by a fine not exceeding £20,000 and on conviction on indictment to a fine.

(4) Where an offence under any provision of this Act committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to have been attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate or a person who was purporting to act in any such capacity, he as well as the body corporate shall be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.”

New clause 17—Prohibition of entry of designated vehicles in designated areas—

“(1) No person shall for the purposes of the exercise of powers granted under sections 1 and 2 drive or cause or permit a vehicle of a designated class to enter a designated area, where “designated class” and “designated area” are as defined in [Schedule: Designated Areas and Classes for Vehicles].

(2) If any person fails to comply with the requirements of subsection (1) he shall be guilty of an offence.

(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be punishable on summary conviction by a fine not exceeding £20,000 and on conviction on indictment to a fine.

(4) Where an offence under any provision of this Act committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to have been attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate or a person who was purporting to act in any such capacity, he as well as the body corporate shall be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.”

New clause 22—Construction of an integrated Euston Station—

“(1) The Secretary of State will require the nominated undertaker to take reasonable steps to develop integrated and comprehensive design and construction plans for Euston Station that include integration with other Euston Schemes.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) “reasonable steps” mean, but are not limited to, the following measures—

(a) The nominated undertaker will seek to maximise, in so far as is reasonably practicable, the volume of excavated and construction material from the construction of the enlarged Euston Station and its approaches to be brought in and removed by rail;

(b) The nominated undertaker will design an enlarged HS2 Euston Station having regard to all relevant parts of the Euston Area Plan and any other relevant Opportunity Area Frameworks or Guidance,

(c) The nominated undertaker will be required to participate in the Euston Strategic Board, which shall comprise representatives from the Department for Transport, HS2 Limited, the London Borough of Camden, the Greater London Authority, Transport for London, and in any successor or additional future governance arrangements which may be agreed between the London Borough of Camden, and the Greater London Authority and Transport for London from time to time,

(d) The nominated undertaker will be required to participate in a Euston Station Strategic Redevelopment Board which shall have the same membership as specified in subsection (2)(c), with the addition of Network Rail and any successor network and station operators, designated under Section 8 of the Railways Act 1993 and having responsibility for Euston Main Line Station or rail tracks that connect to that station,

(e) The Euston Station Strategic Redevelopment Board will advise the Secretary of State on the delivery of an integrated and comprehensive design for the enlarged Euston Station and other Euston Schemes, alongside other duties which may be set out in its Terms of Reference which may be updated from time to time;

(f) The nominated undertaker will be required to participate in a Euston Integrated Programme Board, the membership of which shall include the organisations specified in subsection (2)(b);

(g) The Euston Integrated Programme Board shall have responsibility for managing the integration of the nominated undertaker’s Euston Station design and construction work plans with proposals for other Euston Schemes;

(h) The nominated undertaker will be required to take all reasonable steps to maintain public access to Euston Station and through construction sites that are established for Phase One purposes, including for cyclists and pedestrians;

(i) Where it is not reasonably practicable to maintain public access under subsection (2)(h), the nominated undertaker shall identify alternative measures to maintain public access and implement them where it is reasonable;

(j) The nominated undertaker will be required to participate in a Euston Station Design Panel and use reasonable endeavours to agree the chairperson and other members jointly with Camden London Borough Council, Transport for London and the Greater London Authority, and Network Rail or any successor network operator as defined in subsection (2)(d);

(k) The Secretary of State will require the nominated undertaker to have regard to all recommendations made by the Euston Station Design Panel regarding the nominated undertaker’s ongoing design work for Euston Station,

(l) If requested to do so by the Euston Station Design Panel, the Secretary of State will require the nominated undertaker to notify Camden London Borough Council and the Greater London Authority of the full reasons for failing to incorporate into its design work any changes recommended by the Euston Station Design Panel,

(m) The nominated undertaker will make provision for ongoing community engagement during the construction works for the enlarged Euston Station,

(n) Details of the funding expected to be required to rebuild Euston Main Line Station shall be set out when the Secretary of State’s duties are fulfilled under paragraph 1(D)(1) of Schedule 4A to the Railways Act 1993 in respect of the review periods preceding the rebuild of Euston Main Line Station and the review periods during which the rebuild of Euston Main Line Station is expected to take place,

(3) For the purposes of subsection (1), “Euston Schemes” shall be taken to mean—

(a) The enlarged Euston Station as referred to in Schedule 1 to this Act,

(b) The rebuild of the Euston Main Line Station,

(c) Over site development and related development opportunities above the Euston Station and tracks in line with the Euston Area Plan; and

(d) Additional proposals for new subterranean railways that may be introduced by the Greater London Authority or Transport for London during the Phase One construction period.

(4) Nothing in this section shall override other limitations imposed by this Act.”

New clause 23—Noise and visual mitigation at Mixbury, Oxfordshire—

“(1) The Secretary of State shall require the nominated undertaker to construct, at Mixbury in Oxfordshire, along the west side of the railway’s Hollow Barn embankment, a noise barrier of height between 1.4 metres and 2 metres and of equivalent specification to the noise barrier to be constructed at Westbury.

(2) The area between the Hollow Barn embankment and bridleway no. 303/4 shall be planted with tree screening such that within five years of construction there shall be a tree height adjacent to the embankment of at least 5 metres.”

New clause 24—Benefit/cost review of potential Wardington bypass—

“(1) The Secretary of State shall commission a review of the potential benefits of constructing a road bypass on the A361 at Wardington in Oxfordshire.

(2) The review shall have regard to possible alleviation of HS2 construction traffic and other traffic, and to other alternatives for such alleviation.

(3) The review shall include estimates of the costs of construction of a bypass and other relevant costs.

(4) The Secretary of State must lay a report on the outcome of the review before both Houses of Parliament.

(a) within three months of this Act receiving Royal Assent; and

(b) before commencement of any HS2 construction works necessitating more than 24 heavy goods vehicle movements through Wardington, per day.”

New clause 25—Protection of bridleways in Oxfordshire—

“(1) The nominated undertaker shall take all reasonably practicable steps:

(a) to keep open bridleways in the vicinity of the railway and associated construction works in Oxfordshire; and

(b) to ensure that such bridleways are safely useable for their intended purposes.

(2) Where closure of a bridleway cannot be avoided, the nominated undertaker shall take all reasonably practicable steps:

(a) to keep the duration of the closure to a minimum; and

(b) to provide safe alternative routes on alignments which so far as reasonably practicable avoid proximity to construction works.

(3) Bridleways shall be screened from construction works with appropriately designed screening of a suitable height.

(4) The nominated undertaker shall consult with users of bridleways on suitable ways to implement the duties set forth in subsections (1) to (3).”

New clause 28—Kingsbury railhead special management zone—

“(1) There shall be a special management zone for the area of the Kingsbury railhead, which shall include the areas falling under the aegis of the Kingsbury, Lea Marston, Curdworth, Wishaw and Middleton parish councils and north Warwickshire as a whole.

(2) The nominated undertaker will employ a community engagement team for the special management zone, which shall have responsibility for managing community relations, including the referral, escalation, monitoring and resolution of complaints and the provision of timely information about the status of complaints.

(3) The community engagement team will arrange regular meetings of the nominated undertaker, lead contractors, local authorities and local community representatives to discuss construction issues and forthcoming programmes of work.

(4) The community engagement team shall provide advice on support mechanisms and shall implement the HS2 stakeholder engagement framework.

(5) The community engagement team will be staffed by appropriately experienced personnel and will include—

(a) a single point of contact for local authorities; and

(b) named individual points of contact for property owners affected by construction.

(6) Implementation and enforcement of the Code of Construction Practice within the Special Management Zone will be the responsibility of a senior manager within the community engagement team.

(7) The community engagement team will coordinate responses to the construction of Phase One alongside planning of Phase Two.”

New clause 29—Kingsbury railhead restoration—

“The Secretary of State must require the nominated undertaker, on completion of Phase One construction, to restore the land and environment at and in the vicinity of the Kingsbury railhead to its state as at the date of Royal Assent to this Act, notwithstanding that mitigation measures to be implemented during construction will include earthworks and bunding.”

New clause 31—Mitigation in environs of Old Oak Common—

“(1) Conservation areas in the vicinity of Old Oak Common shall be the subject of special consultation whose objective shall be to mitigate the long-term effects of construction in the area.

(2) The nominated undertaker will use reasonable endeavours to situate heavy goods vehicle entrances to the Old Oak Common construction site as far from residential dwellings in Stephenson Street, Wells House Road and Midland Terrace as is reasonably practicable.”

New clause 34—Mitigation of construction impacts at Canterbury Works vent shaft—

“(1) Commencement of construction work at the Canterbury Works vent shaft construction site shall be subject to there being already in place before construction a traffic management scheme.

(2) The traffic management scheme shall include a requirement that construction on the Canterbury Works site does not entail more than 100 individual heavy duty vehicle trips per day (50 arriving and 50 departing).

(3) It shall be a further requirement of the traffic management plan that trips to be made by heavy duty vehicles will avoid the beginning and end of the school day.

(4) The nominated undertaker will require that all heavy duty vehicles entering or employed within the London low emission zones be powered by Euro VI (or lower emission) engines.

(5) The nominated undertaker will undertake regular environmental assessments of dust levels on the premises of St Mary’s Catholic Primary School, particularly in recreational areas such as the playground.

(6) The nominated undertaker will consider on a monthly basis where further measures at source may be required in order to reduce the effects of pollution, and publish its findings.

(7) The Secretary of State will provide the local authorities in the area of the Canterbury Works with the funds they deem necessary for additional road safety measures to ensure children’s safety during construction.

(8) During construction, the nominated undertaker and its contractors must maintain a construction operations website and a telephone helpline staffed 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to handle enquiries from the general public and local business regarding construction activities.

(9) A log shall be kept of all complaints relating to HS2 construction sites, whether those complaints are made to HS2, local authorities or the police, and all complaints, with HS2’s response and action taken in response, should be published prominently on HS2’s website.

(10) Where there is a pattern of repeated infringement of construction site conditions, HS2 will pay compensation to all those affected.

(11) Information regarding vent shaft construction effects and progress must be made clear through advertisements, on social media, email alerts, local radio and newspapers.

(12) Information services must be provided in languages appropriate to the needs of the area, using the results of a demographic survey.”

This new clause seeks to make mitigate the effects of construction at the Canterbury Works site, in particular in relation to air quality and child health and safety.

New clause 35—Mitigation of construction impacts at Alexandra Place—

“(1) The nominated undertaker will ensure that any HS2-related construction at the Alexandra Place vent shaft construction site complies with existing air pollution legislation.

(2) The nominated undertaker will explore the possibility of using Loudoun Road for the loading and unloading of heavy duty vehicles and of moving materials by rail on tracks running alongside the proposed vent shaft site and shall implement both possibilities to the full extent possible, with a preference for movement by rail.”

New schedule 1—Adjudicator: Status and Funding—

“1 The Adjudicator shall be a body corporate.

2 (1) Subject to sub-paragraph (3), the Adjudicator shall not be regarded as the servant or agent of the Crown or any enjoying any status immunity or privilege of the Crown.

(2) The members of the Adjudicator and of their staff shall not be regarded as civil servants and the Adjudicator’s property shall not be regarded as property of, or held on behalf of, the Crown.

(3) In relation to any matter as respects which the Adjudicator act by virtue of a direction under Section 1.3 the Adjudicator shall enjoy the same privileges, immunities and exemptions as those enjoyed in relation to that matter by the Secretary of State for Transport.

(4) Subject to the provisions of any enactment, the Adjudicator shall not be exempt from any tax, duty, rate, levy or other charge whatever (whether general or local).

(5) The Adjudicator shall receive such funds from the Secretary of State as he considers that it needs to perform its functions expeditiously and efficiently.

Membership

3 (1) The Adjudicator shall consist of not less than 8 and not more than 17 members.

(2) The members shall be appointed by the Secretary of State, who shall appoint one of them to be chairman and may appoint another of them to be deputy chairman.

(3) In appointing any member, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of the members as a whole having knowledge or experience of all the following, namely railway construction and operation, the preservation of cultural heritage, town and country planning, ecology, arboriculture, landscape, and air quality.

(4) In appointing members, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of at least one of them having knowledge of local government (as well as knowledge or experience of one or more of the subjects mentioned in sub-paragraph (3)).

(5) Subject to the following provisions of this paragraph, a chairman, deputy chairman or other member shall hold and vacate office in accordance with the terms of his appointment, but no member shall be appointed for a period of more than 5 years.

(6) A chairman, deputy chairman or member may resign his office by notice in writing addressed to the Secretary of State.

(7) If the Secretary of State is satisfied that a member—

(a) has been absent from meetings of the Adjudicator for a period longer than 3 consecutive months without the consent of the Adjudicator, or

(b) has become bankrupt or has made an arrangement with his creditors, or

(c) is incapacitated by physical or mental illness, or

(d) is otherwise unable or unfit to discharge the functions of a member,

the Secretary of State may remove him from his office

(8) If a chairman or deputy chairman ceases to be a member he shall also cease to be chairman or deputy chairman; and if a chairman or deputy chairman ceases to be chairman or deputy chairman he shall also cease to be a member.

(9) A person who ceases to be a member, otherwise than by virtue of sub-paragraph (7), or ceases to be chairman or deputy chairman, shall be eligible for re-appointment.

Staff

4 (1) There shall be a chief officer of the Adjudicator who shall be appointed by the Adjudicator with the approval of the Secretary of State.

(2) The chief officer shall be responsible to the Adjudicator for the general exercise of the Adjudicator’s functions and may, subject to the directions of the Adjudicator, exercise all the powers of the Adjudicator either himself or through nominated staff members.

(3) The Adjudicator may appoint such other employees as the Adjudicator thinks fit.

(4) The Adjudicator shall pay to their employees such remuneration and allowances as the Adjudicator may determine.

(5) The employees shall be appointed on such other terms and conditions as the Adjudicator may determine.

(6) The Adjudicator may pay such pensions, allowances or gratuities as they may determine to or in respect of any of their employees, make such payments as they may determine towards the provision of pensions, allowances or gratuities to or in respect of any of their employees or provide and maintain such schemes as they may determine (whether contributory or not) for the payment of pensions, allowances or gratuities to or in respect of any of their employees.

(7) The references in sub-paragraph (6) to pensions, allowances or gratuities to or in respect of any employees include references to pensions, allowances or gratuities by way of compensation to or in respect of employees who suffer loss of office or employment.

(8) A determination under sub-paragraph (4), (5) or (6) is ineffective unless made with the approval of the Secretary of State given with the Treasury’s consent.

(9) The Adjudicator shall make, not later than such date as the Secretary of State may determine, an offer of employment by the Adjudicator to each person employed in the civil service of the State whose name is notified to the Adjudicator by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this paragraph.

(10) The terms of the offer shall be such that they are, taken as a whole, not less favourable to the person to whom the offer is made than the terms on which he is employed on the date on which the offer is made.

(11) In determining whether the terms of the offer are more or less favourable to that person than those enjoyed by him on the date of the offer no account shall be taken of the fact that employment with the Adjudicator is not employment in the service of the Crown.

(12) An offer made in pursuance of this paragraph shall not be revocable during the period of 3 months beginning with the date on which it is made.

(13) Where a person becomes an employee of the Adjudicator in consequence of this paragraph, then, for the purposes of his period of employment in the civil service of the State shall count as a period of employment by the Adjudicator and the change of employment shall not break the continuity of the period of employment.

(14) Any dispute arising under this paragraph as to whether or not the terms of any employment offered by the Adjudicator are, taken as a whole, less favourable than those applying to a person’s employment in the civil service of the State shall be referred to and determined by an employment tribunal.

(15) An employment tribunal shall not consider a complaint whereby a dispute mentioned in sub-paragraph (6) is referred to it unless the complaint is presented to the tribunal before the end of the period of 3 months beginning with the date of the offer of employment or within such further period as the tribunal considers reasonable in a case where it is satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for the complaint to be presented before the end of the period of 3 months.

(16) An appeal shall lie to the Employment Appeal Tribunal on a question of law arising from any decision of, or arising in proceedings before, an employment tribunal under this paragraph; and no appeal shall lie except to the Employment Appeal Tribunal from any decision of an employment tribunal under this paragraph.

Proceedings

5 Subject to the following provisions of this Schedule, the Adjudicator may regulate their own procedure (including quorum).

6 (1) A member of the Adjudicator who is in any way directly or indirectly interested in a contract made or proposed to be made by the Adjudicator or by HS2 Limited or by any Nominated Undertaker appointed by the Secretary of State, or in any other matter which falls to be considered by the Adjudicator, shall disclose the nature of his interest at a meeting of the Adjudicator.

(2) The disclosure shall be recorded in the minutes of the meeting.

(3) A member shall not—

(a) where a contract in which the member is interested is under consideration, take part in the deliberations on or decision about the contract; and

(b) where any other matter in which the member is interested is under consideration, take part in the deliberations on or decision about the matter if the Adjudicator decide that the member’s interest might prejudicially affect his consideration of the matter.

(4) For the purposes of this paragraph, a notice given by a member at a meeting of the Adjudicator to the effect that he is a member of a specified body corporate or firm and is to be regarded as interested in any contract which is made with the body corporate or firm after the date of the notice, and in any other matter concerning the body corporate or firm which falls to be considered after that date, shall be a sufficient disclosure of his interest.

(5) A member need not attend in person at a meeting of the Adjudicator in order to make a disclosure which he is required to make under this paragraph if he takes reasonable steps to secure that the disclosure is made by a notice which is taken into consideration and read at such a meeting.

(6) The validity of any proceedings of the Adjudicator shall not be affected by any vacancy among the members, or by any defect in the appointment of any person as a member or chairman or deputy chairman, or by a failure to comply with paragraph 6.

Committees

7 (1) The Adjudicator shall constitute at least one committee to advise them on ecology and at least one to advise them on compliance by HS2 Ltd with its obligations under the Environmental Statement and at least one to advise them on the efficacy of such compensation schemes which are implemented by HS2 Ltd and the Department for Transport and may constitute other committees to advise them on those or other aspects of their functions.

(2) The Adjudicator may include as members of committees persons who are not members of the Adjudicator.

(3) The Adjudicator may regulate the proceedings (including quorum) of committees.

(4) The Adjudicator may pay to the members of any committee such reasonable allowances in respect of expenses or loss of remuneration as the Secretary of State may determine with the Treasury’s approval.

Instruments

8 (1) The fixing of the seal of the Adjudicator shall be authenticated by the signature of the chairman of or some other person authorised either generally or specially by the Adjudicator to act for that purpose.

(2) A document purporting to be duly executed under the seal of the Adjudicator, or to be signed on the Adjudicator’s behalf, shall be received in evidence and, unless the contrary is proved, be deemed to be so executed or signed.

Members Remuneration

9 (1) The Adjudicator shall pay to members of the Adjudicator such remuneration and such allowances in respect of expenses as the Secretary of State may determine with the Treasury’s approval.

(2) In the case of any such member or past member of the Adjudicator as the Secretary of State may with the Treasury’s approval determine, the Adjudicator shall pay such pension, allowance or gratuity to or in respect of him, or make such payment towards the provision of such a pension, allowance or gratuity, as the Secretary of State may so determine.

(3) Where a person ceases to be a member of the Adjudicator, and it appears to the Secretary of State that there are special circumstances which make it right for that person to receive compensation, the Secretary of State may, with the Treasury’s approval, direct the Adjudicator to make to that person a payment of such amount as the Secretary of State may determine with the Treasury’s approval.

Accounts

10 (1) The Adjudicator shall keep proper accounts and proper records in relation to them.

(2) The Adjudicator shall prepare a statement of accounts in respect of each financial year.

(3) The statement shall give a true and fair view of the state of the Adjudicator’s affairs at the end of the financial year and of the Adjudicator’s income and expenditure in the financial year.

(4) The statement shall—

(a) be prepared within such period as the Secretary of State may direct; and

(b) comply with any directions given by the Secretary of State with the Treasury’s consent as to the information to be contained in the statement, the manner in which the information is to be presented or the methods and principles according to which the statement is to be prepared.

(5) The accounts in respect of each financial year ending on or before 31st March 2018 (including any statement of accounts in respect of each such financial year prepared under this paragraph) shall be audited by persons appointed in respect of each financial year by the Secretary of State.

(6) No person shall be appointed auditor under this paragraph unless he is—

(a) eligible for appointment as a statutory auditor under Part 42 of the Companies Act 2006; or

(b) a member of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy; but a firm may be so appointed if each of its members is qualified to be so appointed.

(7) Where the Adjudicator has prepared a statement of accounts in respect of a financial year ending on or after 31st March 2016, it must, as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of the financial year to which the statement relates, send a copy of the statement to the Comptroller and Auditor General.

(8) The Comptroller and Auditor General shall examine, certify and report on any statement of accounts sent to him under sub-paragraph (7).

(9) In this paragraph “financial year” means the period commencing with the day of the Adjudicator’s establishment and ending with the second 31 March following that day, and each successive period of 12 months.

Information

11 (1) The Adjudicator shall make to the Secretary of State, as soon as may be practicable after the end of each financial year, a report on the exercise of their functions since the last report was made or (in the case of the first) since the Adjudicator’s establishment.

(2) Each report shall include a copy of the statement of accounts prepared and audited under paragraph 11 in respect of the financial year and, where the statement has been audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General, a copy of his report on it.

(3) Each report of the Adjudicator shall include a statement of action taken by the Adjudicator concerning—

(a) The compliance by HS2 Ltd with the commitments made in the Phase 1 Environmental Statement,

(b) The adequacy of the mitigation measures undertaken by HS2 Limited and any Nominated Undertaker concerning construction of the line,

(c) Recommendations concerning any additional mitigation measures required to ensure adequate environmental mitigation,

(d) The assessment of reasonable practicability undertaken by the nominated undertaker,

(e) The Secretary of State shall lay a copy of each report of the Adjudicator before each House of Parliament,

(f) As soon as may be after receiving any report made by the auditors on any accounts audited under paragraph 12 or, as the case may be, made by the Comptroller and Auditor General on any statement of accounts prepared under that paragraph, the Adjudicator shall send a copy of the report to the Secretary of State,

(g) The Adjudicator shall furnish the Secretary of State with such information relating to their property and the discharge and proposed discharge of their functions as he may require, and for that purpose they shall permit any person authorised by him to inspect and make copies of any accounts or other documents of the Adjudicator and shall give such explanation of them as that person or the Secretary of State may require and

(h) In this paragraph “financial year” has the same meaning as in paragraph 10.

House of Commons disqualification

12 (1) In Part III of Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 (disqualifying offices), there shall be inserted at the appropriate place in alphabetical order—

(2) “Any member, in receipt of remuneration, of the Adjudicator.””

New schedule 2—Designated areas and classes for vehicles (Specific)—

“Designated area

The A452 road, Balsall Common, between its junction with Windmill Lane and the bridge over the Rugby and Birmingham railway.

Designated class

A vehicle exceeding 8 tonnes.

Designated area

Waste Lane, Balsall Common, between its junction with the A452 and the eastern junction with Old Waste Lane.

Designated class

A vehicle exceeding 8 tonnes.

Designated area

The Kenilworth Greenway.

Designated class

Any vehicle except a vehicle crossing from one side of the designated area to a point immediately opposite.”

New schedule 3—Designated areas and classes for vehicles (Generic)—

“Any designated areas

The designated area or areas in which a designated class or designated classes of vehicles are to be expressly prohibited shall be defined by the Secretary of State after consultation with local interested parties. They shall be contained in regulations to be made by statutory instrument, which shall not be made unless a draft thereof has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.

Any designated class

A vehicle exceeding 8 tonnes, unless otherwise defined in relation to a particular designated area in regulations to be issued by the Secretary of State as above.”

Amendment 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 4, after “1,” insert

“subject to subsections 1A, 1D, 1G, 1I, 1O and 1T”

This amendment seeks to prevent any surface railway route through The Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and ensure that any railway within the AONB be built in a fully-bored tunnel.

Amendment 2, page 1, line 6, at end insert—

“(1A) The nominated undertaker shall not exercise powers granted under section 1 to construct a surface railway route within the boundaries of The Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (Chilterns AONB).

(1B) Any railway constructed as part of Phase One of High Speed 2 and within the boundaries of the Chilterns AONB shall be built as an extension to the bored tunnel in this area, which is planned through the works specified in Schedule 1 of this Act.

(1C) In this section, the Chilterns AONB shall mean the area of outstanding natural beauty designated within the Chilterns under section 82(1) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.”

This amendment seeks to prevent any surface railway route through The Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and ensure that any railway within the AONB be built in a fully-bored tunnel.

Amendment 3, page 1, line 6, at end insert—

“(1D) The nominated undertaker shall not exercise powers granted under section 1 to build a surface railway route within the boundaries of The Chilterns Area of Natural Beauty (Chilterns AONB).

(1E) To fulfil railway construction requirements for Phase One of High Speed 2 within this area, the nominated undertaker shall pursue an extension of the bored tunnel which is planned through works specified in Schedule 1, via a Transport and Works Act order as provided for in section 52 of this Act, or via such other procedure as shall ensure an opportunity for appropriate public participation and objection.

(1F) In this section, the Chilterns AONB shall mean the area of outstanding natural beauty designated within the Chilterns under section 82(1) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.”

This amendment seeks to prevent any surface railway route through The Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and require the nominated undertaker to pursue an extension of the existing bored tunnel outside of this legislation.

Amendment 14, page 1, line 6, at end insert—

“(1G) Any railway constructed as part of Phase One of High Speed 2 and within the boundaries of the Chilterns AONB shall, between South Heath and Leather Lane, east of the A413 Aylesbury Road in Buckinghamshire, be built within bored tunnel.

(1H) The works referred to in subsection (1G) shall be pursued by means of a Transport and Works Act order or such other procedure as shall ensure an opportunity for appropriate public participation and objection.

(1I) In this section, the Chilterns AONB shall mean the area of outstanding natural beauty designated within the Chilterns under section 82(1) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.”

This amendment would seek to provide partial further protection of the Chilterns AONB by extending the bored tunnel northward from South Heath for a further mile.

Amendment 5, page 1, line 6, at end insert—

“(1I) The nominated undertaker shall not exercise powers to commence any works specified in this Clause, or any other construction works connected to Phase One of High Speed Rail 2, until a cost benefit analysis of the environmental impacts of such works has been completed.

(1J) The cost benefit analysis must include, but shall not be restricted to, an assessment of the environmental impacts of Phase One of High Speed Rail 2 and connected construction works in The Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

(1K) The cost benefit analysis shall be undertaken by a review panel, the membership of which must include, but shall not be restricted to, representatives from—

(a) Buckinghamshire County Council,

(b) Chiltern District Council,

(c) Aylesbury Vale District Council,

(d) Wycombe District Council,

(e) The Chilterns Conservation Board,

(f) Natural England,

(g) Environment Agency,

(h) Key community groups,

(i) HS2 Ltd, and

(j) The Department for Transport.

The panel shall be funded and facilitated by the nominated undertaker.

(1L) Within twelve weeks after the date on which this Act comes into force the Panel must report its conclusions and recommendations to the Secretary of State.

(1M) If the Secretary of State rejects any recommendation made by the panel he must—

(a) make publicly available the reasons for doing so, and

(b) demonstrate how any environmental cost that would have been addressed by the rejected recommendation will otherwise be mitigated.

(1N) Any deviation from works specified in this Schedule required as a result of the panel’s recommendations shall be pursued via a Transport and Works Act order, as provided for in section 52 of this Act, or via such other procedure as shall ensure an opportunity for appropriate public participation and objection.”

This amendment seeks to make progress of any construction works connected to Phase One of High Speed Rail 2 conditional on the completion of an environmental cost benefit analysis.

Amendment 6, page 1, line 6, at end insert—

“(1O) The nominated undertaker shall not exercise powers to commence any works specified in this Schedule, or any other construction works connected to Phase One of High Speed Rail 2, until a full reassessment of tunnelling methodology as applied to an extended bored tunnel under The Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, has been completed.

(1P) The reassessment shall be conducted by a panel of experts and other relevant parties, to be appointed, funded and facilitated by the nominated undertaker.

(1Q) Within twelve weeks of this Act coming into force, the panel must report its conclusions and any recommendations to HS2 and the Secretary of State.

(1R) If the Secretary of State rejects any recommendation made by the panel he must—

(a) make publicly available the reasons for doing so, and

(b) provide a cost benefit analysis of any alternative proposal to that recommended by the panel.

(1S) Any deviation from works specified in this Schedule required as a result of the panel’s recommendations shall be pursued through a Transport and Works Act order, as provided for in section 52 of this Act or such other procedure as shall ensure an opportunity for appropriate public participation and objection.”

This amendment would make progress of any works connected to Phase One of High Speed Rail 2 conditional on the completion of a reassessment of tunnelling methodology for an extended bored tunnel under part of The Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

Amendment 7, page 1, line 6, at end insert—

“(1T) The nominated undertaker shall not exercise powers to commence any works specified in this Schedule, or any other construction works connected to Phase One of High Speed Rail 2, until a full assessment of traffic management requirements has been completed.

(1U) The assessment shall be conducted by a panel of experts and other relevant parties, to be appointed, funded and facilitated by HS2 Ltd.

(1V) Within sixteen weeks of this Act coming into force the panel must report its conclusions to the Secretary of State. The report must include but shall not be limited to—

(a) a full assessment of traffic management requirements consequential to any works specified in this Schedule, and

(b) detailed proposals outlining how such requirements shall be addressed.”

This amendment would make progress of any works connected to Phase One of High Speed Rail 2 conditional on the completion of an assessment of traffic management requirements and implementation of solutions to address such requirements.

Amendment 8, page 1, line 6, at end insert—

“(1A) In exercising the powers in this Bill, the nominated undertaker shall have regard to the desirability of minimising the number of gantries to be installed to provide power to the railway, in particular in areas of outstanding natural beauty designated by statute and in other areas of particularly high environmental value and sensitivity, and shall consult with local communities in designing plans for gantry installation.”

Amendment 11, page 1, line 6, at end insert—

“(1A) The nominated undertaker shall not exercise powers granted under section 1 to construct a surface railway route between Burton Green, Warwickshire, and Mercote Hall Lane east of Hampton-in-Arden, Solihull.

(1B) Any railway constructed as part of Phase One of High Speed 2 between Burton Green, Warwickshire, and Mercote Hall Lane east of Hampton-in-Arden, Solihull, shall be built as an extension to the tunnel at Burton Green, which is planned through the works specified in Schedule 1 of this Act.”

Amendment 17, page 1, line 6, at end insert—

“(1A) The nominated undertaker shall not exercise powers to commence any works specified in schedule 1 relating to Canterbury Works in Brent, London until a cost benefit analysis of the environmental impacts of such works has been completed.

(1B) The cost benefit analysis shall be undertaken by a review panel, the membership of which must include, but shall not be restricted to, representatives from—

(a) HS2 Ltd;

(b) Department for Transport;

(c) Brent Council;

(d) Environment Agency; and

(e) Key community groups

(1C) The panel shall be funded and facilitated by the nominated undertaker.

(1D) Within twenty weeks after the date on which this Act comes into force, the panel must report its conclusions and recommendations to the Secretary of State.

(1E) If the Secretary of State rejects any recommendation made by the panel he must make publicly available the reasons for doing so and must demonstrate how any environmental cost that would have been addressed by the rejected recommendation will otherwise be mitigated.”

This amendment seeks to make construction at the Canterbury Works site subject to an environmental cost benefit analysis.

Amendment 12, in clause 20, page 9, line 6, at end insert—

“(1A) The deemed planning permissions in subsection (1) shall be made subject to the approval of the external appearance of the works by the relevant parish or town council,

(1B) The approval of the external appearance referred to in subsection (1A) shall not be withheld unreasonably, and shall be determined by the relevant parish or town council within four weeks of the submission by the nominated undertaker of full details of the external appearance of the proposed works to the proper officer of the council.”

Amendment 16, in clause 29, page 12, line 29, at end insert—

“(2) Any reconfiguration of utilities taking place pursuant to this Bill at Wormwood Scrubs Common will be undertaken with regard to the value of Wormwood Scrubs Common as an amenity, and shall not involve the creation of any permanent pedestrian or vehicular access.”

Amendment 9, in clause 31, page 13, line 30, at end insert—

“(5A) The Secretary of State shall, within one year of Royal Assent, consult on and prepare plans for the undergrounding of all overhead power lines over a height of 15m in areas of particularly high environmental value or sensitivity, and shall within one year thereafter introduce legislation or alternative regulatory measures (to the extent such measures are required) to permit such undergrounding to take place by the end of 2020.”

This amendment is intended to compensate for the physical effects of the railway in certain areas by removing existing obtrusive and unappealing infrastructure.

Amendment 10, page 13, line 30, at end insert—

“(5A) The Secretary of State shall, within one year of Royal Assent, consult on and prepare plans for the undergrounding of all overhead power lines in the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty over a height of 15m, and shall within one year thereafter introduce legislation or alternative regulatory measures (to the extent such measures are required) to permit such undergrounding to take place by the end of 2020.

(5B) In this section, “Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty” shall mean the area of outstanding natural beauty in the Chilterns designated under section 82(1) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.”

This amendment is intended to compensate for the physical effects of the railway in the Chilterns AONB by removing existing obtrusive and unappealing infrastructure.

Amendment 13, in schedule 1, page 79, leave out lines 47 to 50.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Gillan]

New clause 6 relates to the Chiltern review group. The Chiltern area of outstanding natural beauty, which has been a designated landscape for more than 50 years, is the only AONB affected by phase 1 of HS2. As it stands, 8.8 km of the AONB is still exposed to the line and remains untunnelled and above ground. It will be a permanent scar on the landscape, and the effects will be irreversible. A Chilterns AONB review group would provide local authorities and key stakeholders with the opportunity to identify greater measures of mitigation and work collaboratively with the promoter to ensure that this precious area was protected to the highest possible level during the construction and operation of the railway.

When the project was first announced, I was assured that local people would have a chance to input their views and expertise into the plans for HS2, but, so far, those opportunities have been limited. This group of amendments would make sure that local people and councils had genuine influence over the future of their area, which will, I believe, be irretrievably damaged by HS2.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. Is not new clause 7 actually defective? There does not appear to be any duty to replant trees that have died.

[Mrs Gillan]

My right hon. Friend makes a valid point. He will notice that there are a large number of amendments on the Order Paper in my name. I have not had the advantage of parliamentary draftsmen; I have had only lawyers, friends and my own wits, with the Clerks of the House to fall back on. However, I think that as a probing amendment, new clause 7 will make its point.

[Michael Fabricant]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the problem of trees and ancient woodland demonstrates not only a lack of commitment but a deep lack of understanding by HS2 of these environmental issues?

[Mrs Gillan]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I remember considering the matter in a debate in Westminster Hall, which I believe he led. Like me, he is a passionate and long-term supporter of the Woodland Trust, which does valuable work to preserve our precious ancient woodland and to create more native woods.

[Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)]

I was at the debate about ancient woodland to which my right hon. Friend referred. Does she agree that more ought to be done to try to protect those precious ancient woodland habitats? I understand the economic reasons, but what about the ancient woodland?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Gillan]

My hon. Friend has already made a name for herself in the House for defending our environment, and I hope that she long continues to do so. I agree with her entirely. The Woodland Trust wants ancient woodland to be removed from the “no net loss” calculation, and it is disappointed that HS2 has not done everything that it should or could do to avoid the loss of ancient woodland.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

I am sure that the right hon. Lady will acknowledge that when HS2’s original estimate of the amount of ancient woodland was reviewed by the Woodland Trust, that estimate was increased by 78%. It is appalling that the initial environmental survey conducted by HS2 did not record accurately the amount of ancient woodland involved.

[Mrs Gillan]

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

[Mr Goodwill]

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

[Mrs Gillan]

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

[Barry Gardiner]

As I am sure the right hon. Lady agrees, the Minister’s assurance that there will be no net loss is not worth the air time it is given. Ancient woodland is, of course, as Natural England precisely characterises it, “irreplaceable”. The idea that there can be no net loss of something that is irreplaceable is simply a contradiction in terms.

[Mrs Gillan]

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

[Mr Goodwill]

rose—

[Mrs Gillan]

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

[Mr Goodwill]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Gillan]

I again thank the Minister for that clarification.

[Victoria Prentis]

I am very concerned about the protection of ancient pastureland. In one particularly egregious case in my constituency, HS2 Ltd suggested that it replace ancient woodland on ancient pastureland, which is even rarer and more valuable.

[Mr Grieve]

rose—

[Mrs Gillan]

I think my right hon. and learned Friend has had a similar experience.

[Mr Grieve]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Those managing pastureland to produce wild flowers were told that, after years of husbandry, somebody was going to stick a wood on it. HS2’s reaction was simply to find a bit of land on which to stick some trees.

[Mrs Gillan]

I make no comment. That speaks for itself.

[Barry Gardiner]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Mrs Gillan]

I think I have given way enough to the hon. Gentleman. I want to make some progress because so many Members want to speak on this group of amendments, and we have so little time.

I have tabled new clauses, drafted by a very senior lawyer, on a proposal that is of particular importance to everybody—the adjudicator. The proposal is of great importance and would improve the project immeasurably. New clause 8 provides for an independent regulatory body regularly to review and monitor progress during construction, and to hold HS2 to account in delivering what has been promised in environmental and other mitigations. The construction commissioner or complaints commissioner proposed by the Department for Transport simply will not have the remit or the expertise to monitor such a large project. In addition, it can only cover claims of up to £7,500. I believe we need truly independent scrutiny by an independent body. Some of the panel members should have relevant expertise, and most importantly, it should have enforcement powers.

The history of this project is full of errors and omissions, including the downplaying of the environmental impacts, together with the “It will be fine” and “The people along HS1 did not complain” attitude of the promoter. We cannot trust what HS2 is currently offering. At the moment, it is in effect responsible for policing itself.

The Government assure us that the environmental minimum requirements and the code of construction practice offer the necessary protections, but close examination of the documents does not provide such reassurance. The devil is always in the detail. In practice, it means that although HS2 is required to adopt measures to reduce the adverse environmental effects reported in the environmental statement, it only has to do so

“provided that such measures are reasonably practicable and do not add unreasonable cost or delay to the construction or operation of the project”.

In effect, that gives the nominated undertaker, which is in charge of monitoring itself, a “get out of jail free” card.

[Andrew Bridgen]

Is my right hon. Friend as concerned as I am that if HS2 is its own policeman, corners will be cut when the budget comes under further pressure, as it undoubtedly will, and local people and the environment will suffer as a result?

[Mrs Gillan]

I think that will happen. Once this project is on its way, it will be easy to say that this would delay it or that would cost more. Presumably, it will be very easy for HS2 to say that almost any environmental mitigation could cause delays to the project and add to the cost, and therefore that it is not reasonably practical to implement it.

I have looked at the complaints process. It cannot be sensible or practical to have a complaints process that ends up with the Speaker of the House as the adjudicator of last resort for dispute resolution in relation to the construction of HS2 and, most importantly, the implementation of environmental mitigation. I do not want to be fobbed off by the Minister with reassurances that the Department for Transport has covered it all with the construction commissioner, because we can be very sure that it has not. We owe the people burdened with this project, and the communities that are being destroyed, that extra level of scrutiny and protection, and somebody whom they can turn to immediately.

My remaining new clauses concern the tunnels and the look of this project in my constituency. I will summarise those points briefly because many people want to speak. It is not fair to say that my constituency has not been protected at all by additional tunnelling. As the Minister said in his opening remarks—I am told I am to be very grateful—there will now be a tunnel for two thirds of my constituency. My constituents are grateful for that, but 8.8 km of the route through the area of outstanding natural beauty is outside the tunnel. When we are doing such brilliant tunnelling with Crossrail 2, and when we know that tunnelling expertise in this country leads the world, why are we not using that to tunnel under a nationally protected piece of the environment? I have tabled these new clauses to remind the Minister that we will not give up on this issue at any stage, and I hope that the House of Lords will also give it due consideration.

I have tabled an amendment on traffic, which is important because the traffic assessments from HS2 have been atrocious. I have also tabled amendments on pylons, and the possibility that we will be able to take the opportunity offered by HS2’s construction phase to ensure that if pylons are above ground, they are designed to fit in with the countryside, but that if possible they could be placed underground.

I see that you are getting anxious, Madam Deputy Speaker, as am I, because the Government have not given us enough time to do justice to these new clauses. I am sorry that I have not been able to deploy all my arguments, but in the interest of allowing others to speak, and knowing that time has been taken out of this debate by the Opposition’s forcing a vote on something that is not relevant to now or to my constituents, I will let others speak.

[Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

New clause 22 deals with Euston, which is in the middle of my constituency. It is not easy to convey to the House the devastating impact that HS2 will have on my constituency, but let me try. HS2 will come into Primrose Hill and crash through to Euston, destroying everything in its path.

Let me give the House the sheer numbers affecting my constituency: 2,986 people live within 60 metres of the construction site, a further 3,186 live within 120 metres, and 11,414 within 300 metres. That is 17,568 people in my constituency within 300 metres of the construction site. Some 220 family houses will be demolished, and up 1,000 people will lose their homes. Unless there is a plan for an integrated station at Euston, there is the risk that another 150 family homes will be lost, affecting another 600 people—1,600 people are at risk of losing their home.

Many of the family homes that are not destroyed will be affected by noise, and, according to HS2’s own figures, 1,025 family homes—that is 4,000 people—will be affected by noise that requires mitigating measures. Measures are already in place to consider up to another 850 homes and another 3,400 people. Some 7,000 people in my constituency could need noise mitigation measures because of what will happen with HS2 at Euston.

That is not the end of it. If Euston is redeveloped, 3.5 million tonnes of spoil will need to be removed from the site, which is the equivalent of 26 miles of tunnelling for Crossrail. All that must come out of Euston, and there is no guarantee or assurance that that will be done by rail. The net effect for my constituents is the risk of 800 two-way lorry movements a day to remove that spoil, and 90% of those lorries will be HGVs.

That brings me on to air quality, which is notoriously bad in London. It is particularly bad in the Euston area, and the HS2 environmental statement indicates that HS2 will have a substantial impact on nitrogen dioxide levels in a third of locations in the Euston area. If that was not enough on its own—it will have a devastating impact on the constituency—let me throw in two further factors.

The first factor is time. The original HS2 Bill was premised on the completion of a new HS2 station at Euston by 2026. For my constituents, that seemed like a long time. In September 2015, the Government lodged “Additional Provisions 3”, their current plans for Euston. A new station is now to be developed in three phases. Stage A, to the west of the existing station, involves the construction between 2017 and 2026 of six platforms needed for phase 1. Stage B2, the construction in the second phase of further platforms within the existing station but not all of it, is intended to be completed by 2033. The redevelopment of the existing station, stage B2, is unfunded and unplanned, and may begin before or after 2033—half a station in twice the time.

Another factor—there are more I could add to this litany of devastation in Holborn and St Pancras—is that even in 2033, having endured a construction site for the best part of 20 years, my constituents will not see a complete and integrated station in their constituency. On 1 December 2015, Tim Mould QC, HS2’s counsel, outlined to the Select Committee that a new integrated station at Euston is

“not deliverable within appropriate funding constraints”

and that this is the assessment of

“the government, the Chancellor, the Prime Minister”.

There is no timetable for Government funding to complete the final phase. As a result of the lack of planning and integration, Crossrail 2, which hopes to have an integrated station, is now planning on the basis that it may have to build part of its station in Somers Town, removing 150 buildings and displacing another 600 people—half a station in twice the time, with twice the damage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

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

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

[Mrs Gillan]

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

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Gillan]

I have three minutes to sum up six years of hell for my constituents in Chesham and Amersham.

I pay tribute to the dignity and persistence of my constituents, who have remained committed to positive change in the face of great adversity. Those individuals are too numerous to mention, but they include my dedicated constituency staff, our local councils at all levels, our environmental and community organisations, the Clerks of the House—they have been tremendous—and colleagues who have served on both the Committees on the Bill.

I thank colleagues who have stood four-square with me, despite all the pressures that have been brought to bear on them when I have opposed the project. We have succeeded in making some positive changes that will make a real difference to people’s lives. The two extensions to the Chilterns tunnels are very important; the improvements to the “need to sell” scheme are also significant; and even the Chilterns AONB review panel, if it comes about, is important—to name but three aspects of the project.

However, HS2 is being built on the backs of my constituents, who are losing their homes, their businesses, their peaceful retirement, their heath and their communities. The Prime Minister promised me the most environmentally friendly Government ever and that compensation for people affected by HS2 would be fair and generous. This project will still cause damage along over 8 km of the line through a nationally designated, environmentally protected area, and many of my constituents are still fighting for fair treatment and compensation. They would not use the words “fair” and “generous” about the compensation.

For the all the inequitable and atrocious handling of the project, for the poor value for money for the taxpayer, for the inadequate integration of the project and for the damage it will cause my constituency and constituents, I will vote against the Bill again this afternoon. I urge hon. Members to join me in doing so. It may not achieve very much, because Labour and Conservative Members are being whipped to support the project, but at least I will be able to put my head on my pillow knowing that I have done the best by my constituents. I have tried to protect them from the ravages of a project that will consume vast amounts of taxpayers’ money and suck it out of the rest of the system. My constituents and many others up and down the line will pay disproportionately for the burden of political intransigence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

As you know, it is a matter for the Government how they timetable the business. As you rightly say, you have a view that you wish to express. Unfortunately, we are not in charge of the business. I am sure that everybody who reads Hansard will realise that you have raised this on the Floor of the House, even though it is not a point of order for the Chair.

[Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have raised the issue of the procedures on the hybrid Bill process with the Procedure Committee, but because it is a private process it may be difficult for the Committee to look at those. I very much hope that the Government are going to re-examine the hybrid Bill process, and that view has been echoed in the words of many of my friends, particularly those who have served on the HS2 Bill Committee.

The process is not satisfactory from the perspective of either the House or the people most affected by the project. I very much hope that this will not take too long and you could advise me whether the House eventually could change those procedures, so that large infrastructure projects are not dealt with in such an opaque and difficult manner.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

The House can invite the Procedure Committee to look into this matter, as you well know. And you know better than I do how the procedure of this House works, after so many years in this place.