High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Select Committee

Simon Burns Excerpts

Tuesday 29th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Gillan]

I entirely agree. The six men—

[Mr Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)]

They are not all men.

[Mrs Gillan]

The five men and one woman—I apologise to the hon. Member for Bolton South East—have been chosen well and will bring an objective view to the project. However, they will have to get to grips with some pretty complex technical information on local geology, hydrology, construction details, logistics and operations. Even the Clerks of the House, who are very helpful and very good on procedure, will have to get to grips with that information. I want to know what training will be provided, when it will start and who can attend it.

[Mr Burns]

My right hon. Friend makes an interesting point. As she was talking, I was wondering whether, when previous important Committees were formed to deal with the hybrid Bill process and Members were chosen, she expressed such concerns as a member of the Whips Office?

[Mrs Gillan]

As a former Whip, my right hon. Friend will know that he and I may not discuss in public matters that were discussed in the Whips Office. I am rather surprised at him for laying such a puerile trap at this stage, when I am trying to be helpful and to elicit information.

I am concerned about who will provide advice to the Committee. As all of us who have sat on Select Committees and Public Bill Committees and who have been Ministers know, the technical and professional advice that is given to the Committee will be important. I want an assurance that people will be available to provide technical advice to the Committee who are not on the payroll of the Government in one way or another. We have a finite number of engineering companies, most of which seem to be employed by the Department for Transport or other Departments. It is a valid point that we need to know that the Committee will be able to draw on independent technical advice. I want to know how many advisers to the Committee there will be, what their qualifications will be, how they will be chosen, how much they will be paid and who will vet them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Gillan]

My right hon. Friend is leading me down a path that I do not really want to go down. I appreciate what he says and I like the way he is thinking, but I do not want to put the House authorities in the position of deciding whether a petition is vexatious. Some of my constituents know the disregard that is being shown to their views about HS2. They are not vexatious people in any way, shape or form—they are people speaking up for their locality, their homes and their environment—but they are sometimes referred to in derogatory terms by both officials and Ministers.

Amendment (b) is about the ability to amend petitions if someone has made an error in them. We have a complex format for our petitioning process, even in its simplified form compared with when I came into the House some 22 or 23 years ago. It is still complex and daunting, and I need some undertaking that if a mistake is made in the formatting of a petition, that will not be held against the potential petitioners and there will be a mechanism whereby they can be informed of the irregularity and have the opportunity to correct it. In other words, we need the assistance of the House to ensure that people who wish to get their petition in order can do so easily.

If the Committee is to last for two years, some of the petitions may not be heard for a long time. A petition is, after all, a gateway document, and I want to ensure that there is a facility for people to make changes to it. Two years is a long time for a document to be set in stone. I would therefore like reassurance that perhaps over a two or three-year period, there would be the possibility and leeway for amendments to be made to those petitions, and a mechanism whereby petitioners could contact Parliament to make those changes.

Amendments (g) and (h) are about listening to people and how easy we make that process. I know this is a matter for the Committee, but I hope it will hear what I have to say. Hearing people in their own constituency and location could make it a great deal easier for those who want to come forward. The type of questioning we see on our televisions from some of our more tenacious members of Select Committees can look pretty intimidating. I am second to none in my admiration for the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, but I want to ensure that my constituents who come forward to defend their property will not be submitted to that type of aggressive interrogation. They are trying to protect their properties and elicit information, and to give information to the Committee; they are not being held to account by the Committee, which I hope will be borne in mind.

In addition to hoping that some petitioners can be heard in their constituencies and closer to their homes, I also hope we will give people a decent period of notice about when their petition is likely to be heard. I appreciate that the detailed workings of the Committee will set out how and when it will hear which petitions and at what stages, but it is important that people have at least six weeks to make their arrangements. We are not talking about Members of Parliament who are used to being summoned in; we are talking about people who are sometimes in care or who care for others, or who have children or other responsibilities. A decent period of six weeks to let petitioners know when they are due to be heard would be acceptable.

[Mr Simon Burns]

My right hon. Friend raises an extremely important point because clarity and giving people time to rearrange their affairs is important. Does she agree that rather than setting in stone the period of six weeks and defining a term, it might be sensible to operate a system such as that in a long-running court case, and the way that potential witnesses are informed of the time scale in which they may expect to be called to give evidence or make their contribution?

[Mrs Gillan]

My right hon. Friend knows that it is a long time since I was familiar with what goes in on court cases, but if that mechanism gives reasonable flexibility to anybody seeking to petition, I could support and endorse it. My point is that we are dealing with members of the public who have complicated and complex lives, and we must appreciate that. We are not dealing with people who have been called before a Select Committee to be held to account; people are petitioning us and we must treat them with the respect they deserve and give them the time they deserve.

[Mr Burns]

May I reassure my right hon. Friend? I have some personal experience of this procedure, having up to that time served on the second longest Select Committee, which was ironically to do with placing the railway station for the London end of High Speed 1. The attitude of hon. Members on that Committee was that it was not a court of law in which one intimidated witnesses. Members of the Committee were there to help witnesses to develop their arguments so that the Committee was better placed to reach a decision on the merits of the petition and the arguments put forward.

[Mrs Gillan]

That is helpful of my right hon. Friend and I am sure his experience of these matters will be taken into account. It is worth while airing such issues at this stage because if we do not discuss them now, there will be little opportunity for any Members of the House to make their feelings known. It is also important that petitioners know how long their hearing could last. If it is a long, complicated or difficult case, perhaps people will need to come back again after the Committee has taken expert advice, and knowing how much time they need to give up is important.

Amendment (j) has been referred to by others and there are subsequent amendments to it. I think that six members is a good number for the Committee—if I were able to, I would restrict it to six and keep it to those same six people for continuity. However, I am worried about the quorum of three and have suggested that it be increased to four. We in the House set a great deal of store on the balance of Committee membership. When there is a Committee of six and a quorum of three, and three of those members are from the Conservative party, it will be possible for the Committee to sit with only Conservative members. If the quorum was four, we would always ensure a cross-party membership of the quorate Committee. I would like Ministers and the House to think about that issue because a quorum of three would be inequitable. If the Bill is to be scrutinised properly, it must be scrutinised—as other Bills are—with membership from both sides of the House. The danger is in the maths. We are still in the early stages, but I hope that the Committee will let us know how it will divide up the work and update Members who have not been able to attend the sessions, and how it will co-ordinate and ensure continuity between individual Members.

I have tabled amendments (a) and (c) to motion 4 on instruction to the Committee. If the Government are willing to accept amendment (a), that will go a long way to repairing the damage I referred to earlier, which has been done by insulting campaigners, environmentalists, and even MPs alike. That has seemed to be the hallmark of some of the engagement up and down the line, and it is certainly not confined to Chesham and Amersham. We need an understanding of how passionately people feel about these subjects. Indeed, some have engaged experts to provide advice and offer alternatives to the Government on how to do the project better. Those include the new tunnelling proposals that were launched by Chiltern district council, Buckinghamshire county council, Aylesbury Vale district council and the Chiltern Countryside Group last Friday. I know those proposals will be considered very seriously at the highest level, and I hope within HS2 Ltd and by the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Gillan]

I would agree with that. I have known the Secretary of State for a very long time. Indeed, my mother was on his selection committee—[Interruption.] It is not my fault at all; I assure the House that I was not on his selection committee. He has always treated me with respect, and certainly he would do that. I think he understands quite clearly the difficulty and problems that I, my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall), and many other colleagues have with this project, but there has unfortunately been some history to it, and remarks have been attributed to people in high places—such as saying, for example, that the Chilterns is “not exactly Constable country”. This is not a good basis on which to form a relationship when we are looking to protect the countryside. It is important to listen to everybody and to treat them with respect. Let us face it, we have just heard the Government admit that, after four years, their HS1-HS2 link was rubbish. It has taken them four years to get there. We have been telling them it is rubbish, but they have not until this stage admitted that and cancelled the project.

I am coming on to my closing remarks. I apologise to the House for going on for so long, but I did have rather a large number of amendments selected. It is an embarrassment of riches. Amendment (c) raises the question: what more can be added to the instructions to the Committee? Can the Government restrict and issue more and more instructions at any time? What safeguards do we have, if the Committee heads in a direction that officials, HS2 Ltd, the Department or the Treasury get nervous about? Can the Department just add an instruction, or edict, and rule out all the options that can be considered by the Committee? We need to know. If there is to be a war of attrition and an eye cast over the Committee on a constant basis by HS2 Ltd and the Department, and then instructions change through the medium of this House, that would worry me. I am sure that that is not the case, but I look to the Minister for that important reassurance.

I have a couple of questions about the carry-over motion. I do not understand why the Government ruled out a Joint Committee with another place. If time was of the essence and there was a possibility of getting this through before the general election, I would have thought that a Joint Committee with the other place might have been considered. I am not sure why the Government—they have always carried a huge majority—did not consider that. The former Minister may be about to inform me—it is a genuine question.

[Mr Simon Burns]

My right hon. Friend raises a very important point. Certainly, when I had anything to do with this issue, nothing would have given me greater pleasure than if we had been able to do what she suggests. Unfortunately, because of the way in which both Houses operate, it just was not possible within the rules, however we looked at it, to be able to come to that conclusion, even though we would have loved to have done so.

[Mrs Gillan]

That is an interesting response because we have changed Standing Orders for this process and for HS2. I am sure the other place would have looked at it. If not, I would be very interested to see the paper trail and what was pursued. Perhaps we could ask the Minister to place that in the Libraries of both Houses, so that we can see what the problems were. Phase 2 and the route to Crewe is about to come up and we need to see whether there are ways we can facilitate the process. Otherwise, it could be very arduous for our people, and others, who are petitioning.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)]

I do not wish to detain the House for long. I was interested to hear the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) say that it is strange that this House has not modernised its procedures for hybrid Bills. I have never considered myself an arch-moderniser, but I could not agree with him more. The whole process of dealing with major infrastructure projects in this country—including both the parliamentary processes in this House and the processes outside it—is outdated, antiquated and unacceptable in this day and age. The fact that it took 10 years to build terminal 5 at Heathrow and so much time to build some of the other major projects that this country has enjoyed in the past 20 years is ludicrous and we should deal with that.

I declare an interest, because I had the dubious honour of being a member of the second-longest running hybrid Bill Committee, which, again, had an association with the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras, as the Government of the day had the idea that the London terminal for High Speed 1 was going to be at King's Cross. Man and boy, I went through that process and I was fascinated to hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall) say that the members of these Committees are not pressed men. Things have changed, I suspect, in the processes of the House. The Committee had a fantastic cast. There were only four of us: Bob Clay, the former Member for one of the Sunderland seats; someone who has now reinvented himself in this House as the hon. Member for Bradford West (George Galloway); Mr Neil Hamilton; and myself. I knew what they had done wrong, but I was not sure what I had done.

[Frank Dobson]

You were Mr Ordinary.

[Mr Burns]

I suspect that I was actually a sucker, because I had been a Member of this House for only 18 months and I believed what the Whips said when they invited me on to the Committee.

[Sir John Randall]

I am sure that my right hon. Friend was selected because he was marked for high office and they knew that that would be experience he would need later.

[Mr Burns]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that comment, and flattery has got him a long way during his illustrious career, but I do not think that was the reason. I think I was a sucker.

Some serious points arise from my experience and I hope that they will reassure my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) about a number of interesting points that she raised. Although the Committee was not legally defined as such, we were told that we were a quasi-judicial body and we conducted our business as such. Obviously, we had been selected because we had no interest, either through our constituencies or whatever else, in the King’s Cross area. As we saw it, we were members not as, for example, the Conservative Member for Chelmsford with no interest in King’s Cross, but to give an independent judgment on the facts. The whole proceeding was conducted with barristers present arguing the case for and against.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham rightly said that she hoped that the Committee that would deal with the hybrid Bill on High Speed 2 would not be like a Select Committee, interrogating the witnesses and the people who brought their evidence and views before it. That was certainly not my experience and I am sure that it has not been the experience since. Members of such Committees are there to analyse and listen to the arguments and to reach a decision based on the facts and the evidence they have been given, taking into account the best interests of the project and so on.

My right hon. Friend also raised the relevant and important issue of the mechanics of how the Committee will work. As she rightly said, people live busy lives—they work and do other things—and they need plenty of notice about when their turn is anticipated to come. That is why I said in my intervention that, although it will be up to the Committee and its members to organise how they will conduct their business, I hope that they will have a system like that for a long trial in court in which witnesses are waiting to be called to give evidence so that people can have the maximum amount of time to put their affairs in order before they are expected to appear before the Committee with their petition and their points.

I am not in favour of my right hon. Friend’s amendment to raise the quorum from three to four, because, as she rightly said, my hon. Friends and the hon. Members who will be members of the Committee will face an onerous task as they will potentially be sitting three days a week, mornings and afternoons, and during parliamentary recesses. I know from experience that it can be a very long day. I do not share her concern about the fact that there might be a day on which there might be only three members present who were all Conservative Members, given that we are the largest party in the House. I do not think that the members of the Committee will have that mindset or thought process. They will not be Conservative, Labour or Liberal Democrat members of the Committee. They will be virtually independent members reaching decisions on the merits or otherwise of a case based on the evidence. Personally, I am not attracted to the idea of changing the quorum.

[Mrs Gillan]

My right hon. Friend makes a valid point and I follow his argument. For me, it was slightly anathema that the quorum should be only 50% of the Committee. I felt that with such an enormous project, with effectively £50 billion in question at the end of the road, the quorum should be more than 50%. The members will have to sit for very long hours and the subject will take over their lives much as it has taken over my life over the past few years, so it is important that a larger number of them share that burden. I thought that pushing the quorum up to four out of six would be a better way of doing it, but that is just a point of view.

[Mr Burns]

I understand. I would be very surprised, given the nature of these Committees, if the number of members present each day was not far higher than 50% and if the full complement of six members were not present most of the time.

[Mr Goodwill]

We could also have the situation that happened to me when we had a Regional Select Committee in Barnsley town hall. When one member had to pop out to answer a call of nature, the Committee had to suspend. If we had a bigger quorum, that could happen and that would be rather embarrassing for the Committee.

[Mr Burns]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for the tactful way in which he makes his point. I am almost certain that the Committee on the King’s Cross Bill, which had only four members, had a quorum of three. That put a strain on the Committee, particularly when situations arose such as the one that he describes.

I also do not share the concern of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham, expressed in her amendment, about the ability to carry over the Committee into a new Parliament. I think that this is the appropriate time in which to make that point and enshrine it in the rules governing how the special Committee will work. In many ways, it would look rather ridiculous not to have that provision, given that we all know—because of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011—that we will have an election at the beginning of next May.

I am also not so concerned about the fact that, after the election, for a variety of reasons, there might be some changes to the Committee’s membership. There are many examples of changes of personnel in Public Bill Committees, which do equally significant work in studying line by line some very important legislation. Sometimes, if it is the wrong time of year or of the cycle, Ministers taking a Bill through Committee can suddenly disappear and be replaced. The strength of this House is that the sum total of knowledge that Members bring to subjects and Committees means that there would not necessarily be the problem and hiatus that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham fears. Of course, she is right that mechanisms must be there to assist the Committee, in an independent manner, to brief Members who, for whatever genuine reason, have been unable to attend a sitting.

I was also interested in my right hon. Friend’s amendment about the Committee going out to areas that will be affected by HS2. That is an interesting concept. It brings closer to the public the workings of Parliament, particularly on a matter that is so sensitive because it has such an impact on people’s lives. Raising that in an amendment is extremely valid as we all seek to make Parliament more relevant and closer to the people we represent. However, that must ultimately be a matter for the Committee to determine when it forms and decides how to conduct its business.

[Mrs Gillan]

I am grateful for the acknowledgement that some of my amendments meet my colleague’s approval. It is difficult because this is the only forum in which we can examine the matter in detail. Even though it is not a matter for Front Benchers but for the Committee, it is important to get it on the record in Hansard because, like my right hon. Friend, I am worried that we will pull the House into disrepute with the general public if our processes are not transparent at every stage on a project as contentious as this one.

[Mr Burns]

My right hon. Friend is correct, though of course the day-to-day business of the Committee will be very transparent because it will be open to the public so that those who are interested can go and see the workings, particularly when any petitions are being dealt with that are directly relevant to certain communities, groups or organisations. It is not beyond the wit of this place to hold those proceedings in a room that has a television facility so that they can be televised in the same way as Public Bill Committees and Select Committees. The general principle of transparency so that people can see the workings, and follow and monitor the proceedings is crucial.

It was a little unfair of some hon. Members to question paying the Chair. Frankly, given what they will give up, I would not mind if every member of the Committee were paid rather than just the Chair. Serving on it is quite a sacrifice in many ways. We also have a precedent in that the Chair of the Crossrail Committee was paid, as are the Chairs of Select Committees. Having served on three Select Committees, I know that the work of one of them is very brief. When I served on it for a year, it met once a week late on a Wednesday afternoon, and it usually sat for about eight minutes. It always amazed me that the Chair of that Committee was paid the same as the Chair of the Defence Committee or the Chair of the Treasury Committee. It is known in the trade as a very cushy number. However, the job of this Committee’s Chair will not be cushy, and serving on it will be onerous for all the members. One therefore wonders whether it is fair to restrict payment to the Chair.

The amendments that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) have tabled and the debate today have given us an opportunity to consider ideas about how to improve the Bill. Many of the decisions are to do with the day-to-day running of the Committee, and they must be left up to it when it starts its work. As we heard from previous contributions, other subjects are in the remit of the House of Commons authorities, and are therefore matters for them. However, I believe that, ultimately the House must examine the legislative process for such projects because it is deeply flawed.

I was told at the Department for Transport that the basis of the legislation—I assume this is correct because, unlike some people, I believe what civil servants tell me; I may not always accept it, but I believe it—is the legislation in the 16th century that established tollbooths, and that the Victorians thought that it was suitable legislation for granting the permissions to build a railway. Since the railways began, they have always had to have planning permission through legislation in Parliament. Of course, the Victorians were very different. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said in the past, when the concept of building a railway from London was dreamt up in the early 1830s, it took from 1832 to 1837 to think about it, legislate for it, build it and get it running. Clearly, using a premise based on tollbooths is totally out of sync with building high-speed rail, Crossrail, an airport or an extra runway, wherever—if ever—there is going to be one. We should consider that carefully and modernise as a matter of urgency so that this country does not lose out on badly needed infrastructure because of the sheer length of time it takes to get it.