High Speed Rail (West Midlands–Crewe) Bill — House of Lords, 2020-11-30
Topic: Transportation
Anthony Gueterbock (Labour, Centre-left): 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 My amendment, which is the only solution open to me to get the debate on TWAOs going, is to set up a committee of the House to look at areas of the Bill where petitioners had suggested the TWAO option, which is allowed under paragraph 8.118 of the Companion. The difference would be that the committee would hear evidence with an open mind and would be unfettered from not being able to recommend alternatives that would require an AP or TWAO. The committee’s remit would be confined to those issues where TWAOs were suggested by petitioners and not the whole scheme. It would hear evidence and would I hope be supported by an independent adviser who could advise the petitioners The key to the new committee, and we should reflect on this, is that it would recommend changes, but not how they would be implemented. That would be up to the Government, who could decide on a TWAO, or an AP with the additional time it takes, or they could refuse to do it at all. They can do that anyway The petitioners who I talked to expected a greater hearing. We discussed this in Committee. The committee clearly felt that it was acting within the constraint of solutions that would not require additional provisions or Transport and Works Act orders, so the petitioners thought that the process was unfair. This is not good for this project, future projects or communities that feel unfairly treated There is a solution: to use the TWAO that is provided for in Clause 49 of the Bill. In Committee, the Minister gave a very useful description of what the process entails, so I do not have to repeat it now. However, what worries me is that there does not seem to be any consistency in the use of a TWAO. The Government seem happy to decide when a TWAO should be used and when it should not. I am not in any way taking sides as to the rights and wrongs of each case, because that is how the process must work, but it is necessary to have a process that is fair and seen to be fair and consistent Perhaps I may give one or two examples, again without repeating what we discussed in Committee. In phase 2a, there is what has become known as the Stone railhead issue. As noble Lords have said, there has been a lot of discussion about that, and about issues such as the provision of evidence by HS2, the stability of an 11-metre high earth structure and things like that. I think the Select Committee’s conclusion in its special report was that: "If it subsequently proves unfeasible to locate the IMB-R at Stone as the petitioners contend, it will be for HS2 to resolve the issue within the powers of the Bill." As the committee refused the option of a TWAO here, if the Government are to do this later, they will presumably have to do a TWAO at that stage. That will cause a great deal more delay. So why was it not allowed during the Select Committee hearing? The other case is Woore Parish Council, which felt that it needed a TWAO to help with the flow of lorries to the construction sites and proposed the option of using the Keele services on the M6. We will be discussing transport, heavy lorries and other issues in later groups of amendment, but for the local residents the council’s suggestions seemed much better than HS2’s proposals I have discussed before the issue of a tunnel at Wendover, but more recently I have received a copy of a letter from Rob Butler MP, the MP for Aylesbury, who has written to the Minister at some length on it. He commented: "While HS2 Ltd disputes the Wendover proposal’s figures, the company has consistently refused to provide the evidence to back up its stance – be it technical data on the method of construction, or accurate costings" He asks in his letter whether the tunnel alternative actually required a TWAO, but the extraordinary thing is that he then quotes a letter from the Minister, who said: "Our legal advice is that any scheme that conflicts with the specific description of the work in question … is not permissible", and you cannot turn a railway into a viaduct or tunnel, or vice versa. But Rob Butler goes on to say that the Government are changing exactly that by extending a tunnel at a place called Bromford, beyond the length explicitly referred to in Schedule 1 to the Act. The extension conflicts with the description of the works in question, and the Government are proposing it with a TWAO. In the end, Rob Butler MP said: "If I may put it bluntly, either Schedule 1 of the HS2 (London to West Midlands) Act 2017 is immutable or it is not. Given the Department for Transport has given leave at Bromford to deviate from the consented scheme, it appears a mechanism exists for such changes to be enacted without amending the Phase One Act" He added: "If a tunnel can be granted at Bromford, with the use of a TWAO, why cannot this take place … in Wendover"?