High Speed Rail (West Midlands–Crewe) Bill

Report (1st Day)

That the Report be now received.

Amendment to the Motion

Leave out “now received” and insert “not received until a Select Committee has been appointed to consider Works Nos 62, 67, 67A, 67B, 67C, 67D, 69, 69A, 70, 70A, 93, 101B, 101C, 101D, 101E, 101F, 101G and 101H and Footpath Stone Rural 33 and related works as listed in Schedule 1 and the House has debated its report and a Government response; that no member who has spoken in proceedings on the bill be appointed to the Committee; that the Committee be given power to receive oral evidence and to appoint specialist advisers; and that the Committee report within three months of appointment.”

My Lords, in moving this amendment at an unusual stage in the proceedings, my purpose is to debate how small changes are made to the Bill, not the route, either by the Government or by petitioners and the use of Transport and Works Act orders. I am grateful to the Minister for the meeting that she arranged with her and the Minister for High Speed 2, Andrew Stephenson MP. We had some useful discussion. The extraordinary thing is that it is not possible, under the current rules of this place, to debate a Select Committee report. In discussions with the helpful clerks, the next best solution that they came up with was that I move an amendment. I will explain what it does in a minute. I am afraid that it would cause delay, but I believe it offers some alternatives. We will see where that goes.

My purpose is to reopen petitions on phase 2a that asked for Transport and Works Act orders as a solution to the small changes that they were proposing. Both Select Committees, because of the custom and practice here, agreed that this should not be allowed. I will explain that in more detail.

Current practice allows for additional provisions or small changes to a Bill. They are approved in revised form in both Houses but, if the additional provision—I shall call them an AP—is proposed in the second House, it means going back to the first House for approval. This adds delay, so it has become custom and practice that an AP cannot to be accepted in the second House. The committee made that clear and I do not criticise it for so doing but, when petitioners propose changes that they believe will be beneficial, cheaper and reduce the impact on a local area—including one to change a viaduct into a tunnel at Wendover, Stone and Woore, in phase 1—their feeling is that attempt to get a fair hearing in the second House, which is usually the House of Lords, was not fair. They were not able to cross-examine the promoters and staff and came away rather unhappy.

There are other small changes to the HS1 Act that could happen in the Bill, which I do not need to go into. I will write to the Minister about whether those need changes.

It seems to me that the Government are not only seeking to prevent petitioners from proposing TWAOs but withholding information that should be available to them to support their cases. They are resisting TWAOs when proposed by others, such as at Wendover, Woore and Stone, while proposing TWAOs themselves, such as at Bromford. They may well also be making changes to the Bill without seeking any parliamentary approval at all outside the limits of deviation.

It cannot be fair for the Government to be allowed to make the changes that they want by way of a TWAO but resisting by all means the ability of others to propose alternatives which might require a TWAO and the proper consultation and processes that go with it. For future projects, I hope the Government and Parliament will agree that TWAOs should be considered as available for petitioners to deliver alternatives. Clearly, the scope should not be so large as to affect the principle of the project approved at Second Reading.

Although I do not want to divide the House on this amendment to the Motion, there are matters of principle here. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister and colleagues have to say. One solution which would be very much welcome locally, up the route, would be for the Minister to agree that those who asked for a TWAO should be given one. It does not cost very much and would not delay the Bill. I think it would also give an enormous fillip to the Government’s reputation, which is not very good at the moment. But if she declines to do that, then I shall probably feel it necessary to seek the opinion of the House. I beg to move.

My Lords, the first thing to be said on this amendment is for us all to record our thanks to the Select Committee for the sterling and exhaustive work that it did over many months in considering this Bill on behalf of the House. To the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and his colleagues, many of whom are present in the House this afternoon, we extend our thanks. When we considered my noble friend Lord Berkeley’s proposal in Grand Committee, the noble and learned Lord gave what I thought was a magisterial and comprehensive response to it, which leaves me surprised, to say the least, that my noble friend has brought it back to the House today.

The arrangements that the noble and learned Lord set out for the consideration of hybrid Bills are well established, with additional provisions being set forward in the first House but not in the second House. That gives ample opportunity for petitioners to petition but does not unduly extend the process by which Parliament considers these matters. It is a long-established convention that the additional provisions are in the first House and not introduced in the second House. The noble and learned Lord gave a very compelling response as to why TWAOs, in the instances which my noble friend has set out, are not appropriate because they cut across the customary consideration of the Bill, which is radically different from TWAOs that are additional to Bills and promoted in respect of changes after Bills have been enacted. The proper way to consider changes to a hybrid Bill is to amend the hybrid Bill and, where necessary, in the first House, insert the additional provisions, not—because a petitioner was unable to persuade the committee in the first instance, or did not bring in a timely manner proposals to the committee in the first instance—to seek to reopen the issue in a completely new way by means of a TWAO.

It might have been better if my noble friend had been clear that he is seeking to delay consideration of the Bill and to delay the project. He openly opposes the project, as we all know—he has opposed it at every stage. That is perfectly legitimate and honourable. I happen to think that high-speed rail is the face of the future for linking our great cities; if my noble friend wants to be stuck in the Victorian age, that is fine, but he should be open about it. After the exhaustive provision which your Lordships and the other House have made on this Bill, in accord with our customary procedures and in a committee chaired by a former head of the Supreme Court, it is now a bit late to reopen these issues, with the transparent motive of delaying the Bill.

My Lords, at the end of the Committee stage, the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, who it is always a pleasure to follow, implied, and has somewhat repeated today, that those who want to improve the Bill in any way are trying to stop it entirely. Although I am not a fan of the current HS2 project, I am in favour of high-speed rail. The problem was around the routing. However, I accept that the first phase, which affected me most, is going ahead.

The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, put his finger on two things, the first of which was the hybrid Bill procedure. That is not for the Chamber today, but is something for us all to think about. The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, said that it is not customary procedure. That points out that there is a procedure which is not customary, and perhaps that should be looked at again.

Secondly, the most important thing that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said, was that there will always be a few people who will be upset by the result, as with a planning committee. If your planning application goes ahead, those who opposed it think there is some skulduggery afoot, and vice versa. The noble Lord mentioned the Wendover situation, which is in phase 1 and is effectively done and dusted. I do not want the same problems again with following phases of HS2. It is paramount that the Government take as many of the public along with them as possible, not only those whose lives are affected, sometimes dramatically, but the rest of the country, who might see this as quite an expensive project. To persuade the people who have put the Government in place that this is a good project, some of these TWAOs should be heard.

I understand that this is not the customary procedure, and that it is late now. I do not particularly want this Bill delayed any further—we might as well get on with it. However, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has raised a very interesting and useful point of debate. If there are going to be such projects, we should think about how to maximise support for them with the public.

My Lords, I refer to my railway interests on the register, and apologise that I was not able to take part in Committee. However, I have read Hansard, and it is clear to me and, I suspect, any objective reader that my noble friend Lord Berkeley was unable to persuade the other Members that further reviews of HS2, such as the one that he is suggesting in his amendment this afternoon, are needed. It was put during Committee that he was attempting to kill the project through endless reviews. My noble friend Lord Adonis went as far as to accuse him of being disingenuous. I am not sure whether that is a parliamentary term or whether it would be regarded as acerbity of speech, but it seems extraordinary that having served on the Oakervee review—as deputy chairman, no less—alongside the most distinguished group of independents drawn from academia, industry, the City, the national railway, Transport for London and local government, including the Conservative Mayor of the West Midlands, my noble friend, having failed to convince them, should now be saying that we should halt the progress of this Bill while yet another Select Committee is appointed.

I would be grateful if, when he replies, my noble friend could explain one aspect of his amendment which he did not mention: his attempt to tie the hands of the Committee of Selection and limit the membership of the proposed new committee. I do not remember seeing that before in your Lordships’ House. It would be a very undesirable precedent. It is a rather different tone to the one that my noble friend adopted when the House approved the composition of the Hybrid Bill Select Committee on 5 March. He said then

“I offer a few words of congratulation to the noble Lords appointed to this committee. With previous Select Committees, the House of Lords has really done very well in listening to petitions and coming up with recommendations… my plea to noble Lords on the committee, apart from wishing them well, is to listen to petitioners, give them time and listen to the evidence—I know that they will—rather more than sometimes happens in the Select Committees of the other place, where everybody is in a hurry.”—[Official Report, 05/3/20; cols. 725-26.]

My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, because it is important to hear from local groups, from those with a lot of expertise, from people with specialist skills and from those who really care about their immediate environment. It is valuable.

An earlier speaker said that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, was back in the Victorian age. I have known the noble Lord for a long time, and I was told long before I met him that he was a real fanatic, if I may say that, who loves railways, as I do. I do not have a car; I go everywhere by train, and my partner works on the railways. There is no doubt that I like railways and trains. I want to make that clear, in case any aspersions are cast against me by later speakers. The Victorian age was the most incredible time for building railways, so that was a very inapt historical comment—a bit shaky on the history.

I am sorry for people who cannot keep up with the change in society that is happening so fast. Have we really learned nothing from the pandemic over the past year, when people have taken to remote working and have loved staying at home and seeing more of their kids, having more time and working and shopping locally? From that point of view, it has been a real success. From my point of view as a big opponent of HS2, HS2 has caused, and will cause, untold damage to our natural environment. It is being built for a market that will not exist in a future that will not happen, and I really wish that people could keep up with what is going on.

Returning to the Motion, members of the public, local groups and parish councils have tried to engage with the process of a hybrid Bill but, because of all the weird ways that we have, they have been unable to properly take part in the proceedings. That is unfair, and it also means a loss of expertise and wisdom. The Government recognise that HS2 will be expensive and that it will have huge impacts on the areas that it passes through, so it is only fair that your Lordships’ House should hear from the people affected. This is not an afternoon debate in the House of Lords; people’s whole lives will be affected. Those people should be able to cross-examine HS2’s experts.

It is worth getting the Bill right. I do not want it to go ahead but, if it is to do so, it has to be right. I would much rather that we scrapped it altogether but, if we cannot, let us at least make it better as much as possible, rather than the Government just burying their head in the sand and not listening to local people.

My Lords, I must admire the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for his persistence and consistency. As has already been noted, he is fundamentally opposed to the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, already referred to the masterly summing up of the procedural situation by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, who chaired the committee on which I had the honour to sit. It was not just a matter of precedent, although, as a matter of precedence, it is for the House to examine as a separate entity, and not just as an issue buried inside one Bill, whether the current procedure is adjudged by noble Lords to be ideal and whether dealing with it as a matter buried inside one Bill is a proper way of addressing people’s concerns about the procedure, in so far as those concerns exist.

There was plenty of opportunity in the other place for the matters that are now being raised to be considered, and it was therefore not appropriate, under our existing procedure, for the second House to address those things. There is also a practical problem. If one introduces a further step, whether by additional provision or by a TWAO, fresh uncertainty is brought into the case. Landowners might well be affected by any change undertaken in that way, so, in fairness to them, you would have to go back and rehearse the arguments all over again.

I have dealt with only this one case of the HS2 Bill; nevertheless, I think that the procedure is perfectly sound, giving every opportunity for cases to be heard. My goodness, we should be proud as a Parliament that it is possible for people to bring their grievance or petition and have it heard in both Houses of Parliament. Through that process, there is plenty of opportunity for any glaring injustices to be dealt with.

The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, referred to the depot or railhead at Stone and the village of Woore. I am subject to correction on this, but I am not aware that, through our proceedings in the Select Committee, those who represented the interests regarding Stone made the suggestion that they should have the opportunity, by means of a TWAO, for further discussion of the route; nor do I recall any such suggestion from those who represented Woore. The committee visited Woore and saw the situation for itself. Therefore, quite honestly I cannot see that this amendment does anything other than contribute to the determination of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, to delay and possibly wreck what is, in my view, an important piece of legislation.

My Lords, I have tried to consider this amendment not as a debate over whether the route should go ahead, but on its merits. I found it difficult to understand, but it seemed that the essential objective was to allow petitioners to make further submissions—a second bite at the cherry, as it were.

Reading the committee’s report, I am content that the petitioners have been adequately dealt with. The point of contention is that applications relating to additional provisions should not be admitted. The case for not admitting additional provisions is set out in Appendix 2 of the Select Committee report, which gives details of the precedent set by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Walker, when he was chairman of the House of Lords Select Committee on the High Speed Rail (London-West Midlands) Bill. I will quote from the appendix, which contains a statement made by the chair of the Select Committee on the High Speed Rail (West Midlands-Crewe) Bill. Paragraph 7 says:

“Those adversely affected by an additional provision ordered in the House of Lords as the second house would be denied that opportunity in the Commons as the first house unless the bill were to be returned to a Select Committee of the House of Commons with all the delays and additional expense that this would give rise to. As a matter of practical reality, almost every additional provision which solves or mitigates difficulties for one group of residents along the line raises new difficulties for another group. That is why petitions against additional provisions are permitted and why parliamentary practice regards it as unfair for additional provisions to be introduced in the House of Lords as the second house.”

The statement goes on to say that the committee considered the applicability of a Transport and Works Act order and came to the conclusion that it was highly related to the concept of additional provisions and that it should not be admitted.