High Speed Rail (West Midlands-Crewe) Bill

Lord Haselhurst Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords & Committee: 2nd sitting : House of Lords & Committee: 2nd sitting
Thursday 12th November 2020 Grand Committee

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]]

I think that the previous two speakers are actually getting a little bit personal, putting words in the mouth of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and misrepresenting him. They should both perhaps row back a little from personal comments, which they seem keen to make at the moment.

It is true that HS2 had the Oakervee review but, quite honestly, it was little more than an election gimmick by the Conservative Party. Sure enough, after the election, the Government were absolutely committed again, and they reiterated full support for HS2. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, explained this incredibly clearly in his opening statement, and perhaps it was so clear that people misunderstood it—I am not sure. He proposed a truly independent peer review on the full range of issues. I do not see why this is controversial. You cannot learn lessons if you have no lessons to draw on, and that is the big problem with HS2.

The proposed publication of a cost-benefit assessment of HS2 with annual revisions seems to me like good business practice. I have absolutely no idea why anybody would object to the amendment. It should be standard for any government project to have this sort of truly independent review and a cost-benefit analysis. Rigorous and independent peer-reviewed analysis would give a much more informed public debate; at the moment, we have HS2 blasting out its credentials all the time, when we know that it is doing the most incredible environmental damage and is costing a fortune. How can the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, dare to talk about taxpayers’ money when we are spending billions on this project? In view of the pandemic and people therefore working remotely these days, it is quite likely that there will be less demand for this demand for a project for a year, at least, and for much longer after it has finished.

Everybody says that HS2 is a project for the future, but it is a creature of the past, quite honestly. It was designed for a past that used to be the norm, and we will not be seeing that norm again very soon. For me, the cost far outweighs the benefit. Regrettably, it is perhaps too late to stop it, but really, we should—we should not spend a penny more. These amendments would help to settle that argument. If I saw the results of an independent review that ruled that it was worth the money, I would accept that.

[Lord Haselhurst (Con) [V]]

My Lords, we always seem to have a conflict in our country between those who believe that we are far too slow in improving infrastructure, and those who appear to think that we are doing it too quickly, if not recklessly. This can apply to so many things, some of which I have been involved in in the past, as a Member of the House of Commons.

Broadly speaking, it is fortunate that the divide is not simply on a party basis. It is not always that I find myself on the same side as the noble Lords, Lord Liddle and Lord Adonis, but I find myself firmly bracketed with them on this issue. I am well disposed to the project of HS2, and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, is plainly not, whatever his protestations. He has a fairly good track record, even within the confines of this Bill, of trying to find ways of delaying it and pushing it even further into the future.

“We do things in a hurry when there is a war on”— a remark I heard many years ago, which gives away my age. Another comment somebody made to me, which I have no reason to dispute, was that synthetic rubber would probably not have been invented had it not been for the Second World War.

I find it very hard to see anything other than another form of dilatory motion in the amendment we are discussing, which is different from the one that we debated at the request of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, on Monday. The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, made the point about finding people who apparently would satisfy the opponents of HS2, and it is going to be a difficult exercise. Where would one get a group of people who are sufficiently saintly to be free from ever having tossed out a casual remark at a local drinks party that does not stain them with bias on this subject?

As I say, I am in favour of the project. I want to get on with it—but I am not without concern for people and communities who are disadvantaged. What I saw as a member of the Select Committee was the effort being made to soften the blow and provide compensation, even if it does not go quite as far yet in every case as might be justified.

The important thing about HS2 is the levelling-up potential. Speed is important: the length of time to get from home to work is a crucial factor. I picked up on the fact, as the Member of Parliament who saw a third London airport built in his constituency, at Stansted, that HS2 would mean that Birmingham Airport would be a shorter distance in time from London than would Stansted. That to me was an astonishing fact. Birmingham is our second city, yet its airport could hardly be said to be the second airport of the United Kingdom. I mean no disrespect to Manchester when I make that comment. Surely, it would make it easier for cities such as Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester and Nottingham if people could arrive in this country and find that there were fast journeys between cities and towns and the other areas they wish to get to.

Then, we have the pressure on the south-east. As has been spelled out so many times, there is the difficulty of fitting in all the housing we need into an area where, yes, jobs are being created—and that is wonderful—but we want to see jobs being created across the country. The conundrum of a country divided between north and south has remained unsolved for 60 or 70 years, despite the efforts of Governments of all colours to get on top of it.

Therefore, HS2 has a very important part to play in that, and it is already helping to create jobs. If, as can be said, there is a war on—a war against the pandemic—and there are already signs of jobs being created by HS2, then that is the way in which we are going to bring about some real, true levelling-up in our country. We need a decision above all things at this time on HS2—not more inquiries or reviews—because we want to win the war.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)]

The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, has withdrawn from speaking to this amendment so I call the noble Lord, Lord Haselhurst.

[Lord Haselhurst (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I listened with interest to the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. In general, while of course one should uphold the idea of best practice in these circumstances, we are never going to get to a situation where best practice is perfect practice.

I have seen the law on compensation tightened over many years and become more rigorous and more extensive. The present situation is that it is backed up, in the case of the hybrid Bill procedure, with the opportunity for an individual, community or business to bring their grievance to Parliament. The HS2 Bill has been through that process in the Commons and in the Lords.

One should remember that there will always be two parties to any negotiation. Our committee listened with great sympathy to many of the points that were made to us. Our job was to try to push both sides together to reach an agreement. Many an agreement was made, some of them without the petition having to be brought as far as the committee. Some claims seemed slightly far-fetched—that must be honestly admitted—whereas others were deeply emotional and it was difficult to find the absolutely correct way of addressing them.

I have seen various things in my political lifetime relevant to a discussion of this kind. In my first constituency, Middleton and Prestwich, those two towns were suddenly separated by a six-lane highway, the M62. That project finally tipped the Government of the day into recognising that it is not just land-take that should be measured in circumstances of that kind but that there are various other factors, such as noise disturbance, obviously. That led to the Land Compensation Act 1973.

For most of my political life I was the Member of Parliament for the constituency in which it was designated that London’s third airport should be established, at Stansted. The battle over where the third London airport should be put was fought for over 40 years. I was the unlucky person who was finally overridden in the campaign by the Government of the day. But I saw a whole host of types of grievances that arose and there is nothing more potent than aircraft taking off a mile or two away from where you live. One understands that the very concept of a high-speed railway gets people on the defensive, quite rightly.

However, I honestly do not recognise that from my recent experience on the HS2 hybrid committee. I think a great measure of justice has been done, as far it as can be when you are talking about the construction of a railway of this magnitude. I say to the noble Earl that I do not recognise too much of what he has just described to the Committee. What other colleagues who were alongside me on the committee would say I do not know but I think it was our general recognition, as may be judged from the report, that we were able to get accords in many difficult situations. Not all of them—maybe one or two of the claims were extravagant —but by and large petitions kept being withdrawn because an agreement was reached.

I just do not know whether it is possible at this stage to put into legislative form a compensation system which will ever be universally acceptable. There will always be consideration of the other side. If there is going to be wider public complaint about the rising cost of great infrastructure schemes of this kind, there has to be some sort of control on the level of compensation given, which will not, alas, fully satisfy every single person affected by the project. So I honestly do not see the need for an amendment of the kind proposed.