23 Mar 2016 : Column 1595

Points of Order

1.50 pm

Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I should like your advice on a Select Committee report that was published only this morning, but which, I am afraid, relates specifically to some of the business that is before the House today.

The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee has reported on an investigation into a complaint against HS2 Ltd that was upheld by the ombudsman, who fined HS2. The Committee received and published a large body of evidence that is highly critical of HS2 Ltd. Following its investigation, the Committee has declared that the

“culture of defensive communication and misinformation within”


“is not acceptable. Unless those responsible for delivering HS2 understand that first and foremost they serve the public, and take action to reflect this, then they will continue to be vulnerable to the criticism that they have disregard for members of the public who are impacted by”


The report was published only this morning, so it has obviously been impossible to table amendments to the High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill, with which we shall be dealing later today, in respect of the report and that poor communication and disregard for people affected by HS2. Can you advise me, Mr Speaker, whether it would still be possible, in the House, to call for a separate debate on the report, and to look into the continuing disrespectful behaviour of HS2 Ltd and its management?

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her point of order, to which my response is twofold. First, as I am sure she will be aware—this will not satisfy her, but I say it as a matter of fact—the report to which she has referred is tagged to the Third Reading debate on the Bill. That is to say, it is highly germane to that debate.

Secondly, the right hon. Lady asked me whether she could call for, or seek by one means or another, a separate debate on the report. The answer is that most certainly she can seek such a debate, and she may well be successful in obtaining such a debate—I do not, at this point, know—but that, of course, will not assist her in terms of the business scheduled for today. The matters that are up for debate in the House today will naturally proceed, and must, in terms of good order, do so. Nevertheless, the right hon. Lady, who is a wily operator, has made her point in her own way, and it is clearly on the record. That seems to bring—

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con) rose—

Mr Speaker: —a warm smile to the visage of the hon. Member for The Cotswolds, from whom we shall now hear.

Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con): And whose birthday it is.

Mr Speaker: Whose birthday, allegedly, it is. It is always useful to have a bit of information. I wish the hon. Member for The Cotswolds a happy birthday, and I look forward to hearing his point of order.

23 Mar 2016 : Column 1596

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: On a point of order, Mr Speaker —and thank you for your good wishes. As you will know, I very rarely make points of order in the House, but on this occasion I must seek your advice on how I might lobby the business managers about the inadequacy of the time that has been provided for the Report and Third Reading debates on the Bill today.

Millions of people up and down the line are affected by this large and highly complex project, and by the Bill. I do not think that three hours for Report and Third Reading is sufficient to give Members of Parliament an opportunity to make representations on this complex project on behalf of their constituents, let alone members of the Select Committee, some of whom—although not I—spent 160 working days sitting in the Select Committee. Some might give the House the benefit of their wisdom by suggesting how the hybrid Select Committee procedure could be improved.

Mr Speaker: First, let me acknowledge and pay tribute to the extremely unselfish and conscientious work that the hon. Gentleman and others did on the Committee, under the distinguished and stoical chairmanship of the hon. Member for Poole (Mr Syms). Secondly, I would say to the hon. Gentleman that if the Government Chief Whip were here, he would have heard the hon. Gentleman’s point of order, but he is not, so he has not. That said, I feel sure that the thrust of it will be conveyed to the Chief Whip ere long.

Mrs Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con) rose—

Mr Speaker: Of course I will come to the right hon. Lady, and will treat her with the very greatest respect.

As Members know, and as others attending to our proceedings need to be aware, these are not matters for the Chair. Members are ventilating their very real sense of grievance and unhappiness, but these are matters for the business managers to determine. They make their own judgments. People operate—if I can put it in this way—at their own level in regard to what they judge to be the proper treatment of business and of the thoughts on these matters of Members, including minorities of Members. Those are not judgments that I can second-guess. We all have our own views, but I think that I should properly leave it there.

Mrs Spelman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will know that I, too, rarely make a point of order in the House.

I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for understanding the frustration that we feel, as Members representing the affected constituencies. The fact is that, given that roughly 50 amendments have been tabled, if we were to put our amendments to the vote in the time available—one hour for the first group and two hours for the second—there would be no time for us even to discuss them.

A great deal of work, and a great deal of excellent assistance from the Clerks, has gone into creating amendments that I believe would ameliorate the consequences of the Bill. Will you use your good offices, Mr Speaker? When you speak to the Lord Speaker, will you draw her attention to the fact that, although amendments were tabled, we had very little opportunity to debate them and press them to a vote?

23 Mar 2016 : Column 1597

Mr Speaker: That was an extremely well chosen and thoughtful point of order. I acknowledge that, as the right hon. Lady said, she very rarely raises points of order; her seriousness of purpose is, I think, respected in all parts of the House.

I will indeed convey that sentiment to the Lord Speaker. I think that the unhappiness is well known. It is a matter of fact that, among those affected, there will be very real consternation about this. That the individuals affected are a minority of the electorate is not in doubt, but they will be very unhappy about it, and that is not something that should be blithely dismissed by the Executive branch of our political system.

There will be those who think, “All that you do is get the business through and that is all that matters”, and who are quite hard-headed and perhaps even a bit cynical, but people ought to have regard to the views and interests of minorities. They might, on a particular issue, one day be in that position themselves; they will then want the very protection that the right hon. Members for Meriden and for Chesham and Amersham, and the hon. Member for The Cotswolds, are seeking. I will certainly relay the concern to the Lord Speaker.

Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was always my understanding that if one wished to add one’s name to amendments, as long as one did it the day before the day on which the Order Paper was to be published, that was sufficient. So I was a little surprised, on reading today’s Order Paper, to see that, despite the personal visit that I made yesterday to the Private Bill Office—no one suggested to me that I was too late to add my signature to a number of the amendments—my name does not appear at all. I wondered whether that was a matter on which you could shed any light, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: We have been extremely well served, as always, by our Clerks, who do their business with great commitment and prowess, and I have just been advised on this matter. That advice is that I will cause the matter to be investigated. The truth is that, off the top of my head, I have absolutely no idea why the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s name has not been added to those amendments. One would assume that in the ordinary course of events it would be, so I am rather taken aback. His understanding of the normal practice is, as usual, quite correct. Let us have the matter looked into, but I hope that it will be trumpeted to the good people of the Beaconsfield constituency that he sought to have his name added to the amendments, and the work in progress is that he may yet succeed in that mission.

Mrs Gillan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I hope that I am not trying your patience, or that of the House, too much by raising a further point of order. I want your advice on this matter for the benefit not only of those in the House but of the people outside who watch these proceedings. It might be of interest to know that when the Channel Tunnel Bill went through the House in 1987, its Report stage was not guillotined and lasted from 7 pm until 1.50 am. Only after that did its Third Reading debate begin. Mr Speaker, could you confirm that, according to the timetable motion on the Order Paper, if any Member chose to press an amendment in the first or second group to a vote, that vote would eat

23 Mar 2016 : Column 1598

into the time allowed for Members to debate these matters? Our constituents are not going to understand why Members do not press these amendments to the vote, but the Government have engineered this so that if we do so, we will have no time to debate the Bill. There might be Members present who wish to have their amendments voted on, but if they press their amendments to a vote, they will rob people on both sides of the House who are affected by the Bill of the opportunity to speak. As you have pointed out, Mr Speaker, this affects only a very small minority because both the main parties in the House are being whipped to vote for the Bill.

Mr Speaker: The right hon. Lady’s interpretation is correct. I always think that it is important for our proceedings to be intelligible to people beyond this place, so let it be stated on the record that these exchanges have not eaten into the time available for debate at all. They have obliged the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), who is about to present his ten-minute rule Bill, to wait patiently before being able to speak to it, but they have not in any way detracted from or taken time out of the debate on the High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill. I am afraid that the right hon. Lady is correct to say that if Members seek a Division on a particular amendment, that will eat away at the remaining time available for debate. A lot of people will feel that that is a regrettable state of affairs, to put it mildly. I note what she has said about the precedent of the Channel Tunnel Bill. The Secretary of State is not in his place, although he might very well be here for Third Reading. As far as I am aware, he is a person of robust constitution and perfectly capable of staying in the Chamber for an appreciable period to debate matters of important public policy. I have never had any reason to suppose that his conscientious Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State—[Interruption.] His Minister of State, indeed. No discourtesy was intended to the hon. Gentleman. I have never had reason to suppose that the Minister of State was incapable of strenuous parliamentary endeavour over an extended period.

The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill) rose—

Mr Speaker: Perhaps the Minister is going to add to that point now.

Mr Goodwill: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I should like to point out that last night’s Business of the House motion was not objected to. On the matter of Members having had their say on the Bill, the Select Committee sat for 160 days, which was more than 700 hours. It heard 1,600 petitions, and 21 Members of this House appeared before it a total of 36 times. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) herself attended three times, for a total of two hours and 10 minutes.

Mr Speaker: That is a matter of indisputable fact, and I thank the Minister of State for taking the opportunity to make that point. So far as last night is concerned, it is also a matter of fact that the motion was not objected to. The Business of the House motion appertaining to this matter was of course objected to on Monday

23 Mar 2016 : Column 1599

evening by the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham. Had it been objected to last night, there would have been a requirement for a debate today on Members’ concerns, which would have eaten into the available time. The absence of an objection last night and the fact that I have just mentioned are obviously causally linked.

Mrs Gillan: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker, and to the courteous contribution from the Dispatch Box by the Minister of State, I would like to confirm that I did object to the sittings motion, but in discussions with the business managers I was informed that if I objected on the second night, the matter would have come back today and eaten into our debating time. That would have course have been completely self-defeating. I think the point was made on the first day when the objection was made, and the Minister should really understand the procedure in that sense.

Mr Speaker: The right hon. Lady has put the matter fairly and squarely on the record. I am always happy to hear points of order and to do my best to respond to them, but I think it is fair to say that for now we have exhausted that terrain. We should move on to the ever-patient right hon. Member for North Norfolk.

23 Mar 2016 : Column 1600

Cannabis (Legalisation and Regulation)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

2.5 pm

Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD): I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 to provide for the lawful production, packaging, marketing, sale, purchase, possession and consumption of herbal cannabis in specific circumstances by certain persons; and for connected purposes.

It is long overdue that we call time on the so-called war on drugs launched 45 years ago by the then President of the United States of America, Richard Nixon. Since then, billions of dollars every year have gone straight into the hands of organised crime, Governments have been corrupted by the drugs trade, thousands upon thousands of people have lost their lives in countries such as Mexico and Colombia, profits from the drugs trade have funded terrorism—as recognised by the United Nations Security Council—and thousands of our fellow citizens every year are criminalised for using drugs. This has been a catastrophic failure.

There is an urgent and compelling case for a more rational approach. Thankfully, around the world, sense is breaking out. In the United States, Colorado, Alaska, Oregon, Washington and the District of Columbia have all legalised cannabis, introducing a regulated market. Uruguay has done the same thing. In Europe, Portugal has decriminalised drug use—a move that now has cross-party support from right to left—and is instead taking a health-based approach. Drug-related deaths and sexually transmitted diseases due to drug use have decreased dramatically as a result of the change. And now in Canada, the new Liberal Government have been elected on a manifesto that commits them to legislating for the legalisation of cannabis. My plea is that in this country we should base our approach on evidence and on reducing harms rather than on fear and anxiety about public reaction. My sense is that the public are, in many respects, way ahead of the politicians on this subject.

My starting point is that I am instinctively hostile to drugs, legal and illegal. Tobacco kills about 100,000 people in our country every year. Alcohol causes untold damage to very many families, not least because of its association with domestic violence. It also leads to violence on our streets. The most potent strains of cannabis also carry health risks, including psychosis and memory loss, but do we really think that we best protect people by leaving the supply of cannabis in the hands of organised crime? No criminal is interested in people’s welfare. When someone chooses to buy cannabis, they have no idea what they are buying or how potent the product is. So-called skunk is widely available on the criminal market in every town and city across our country. Any idea that we can protect people by keeping it illegal is fanciful. No one now believes that we can actually win the war on drugs, so a public policy intended to protect people from harm is achieving precisely the opposite, and we are putting billions of pounds every year into the pockets of organised crime. What a spectacularly stupid self-defeating policy!

Some people raise a legitimate anxiety about people moving from cannabis to harder, more dangerous drugs, but the risk is self-evidently far higher when people buy from criminals, who have a direct interest in persuading

23 Mar 2016 : Column 1601

them to do just that. On top of that, we criminalise tens of thousands of people every year for the use of cannabis, blighting their careers, damaging their life chances and restricting their ability to travel. Many people with mental ill health resort to cannabis as a relief from the pain they suffer, and then we criminalise them. What a cruel, unjust policy that is. We criminalise multiple sclerosis sufferers and many others who use cannabis to relieve pain, so I strongly support the “End Our Pain” campaign.

There is real hypocrisy here. While those people are knocked back by criminal convictions, others, usually the more privileged, go on to build successful careers. How many members of the Government have smoked cannabis while maintaining their support for the conviction of their fellow citizens? The Prime Minister was a reformer. It has also been reported that he and others were caught smoking cannabis at Eton. He has gone on to do quite well. Having signed up to a Select Committee on Home Affairs report in 2002 calling for the then Labour Government to initiate a discussion of alternative ways, including the possibility of legalisation and regulation, to tackle the global drugs dilemma, he retreated once elected Conservative leader and now seems implacably opposed to reform. Why has the Prime Minister changed his mind? Why continue to allow our fellow citizens to be put at risk, with the possibility of criminal conviction, for doing exactly what he did?

My party, the Liberal Democrats, commissioned an independent expert panel to advise on a more rational approach. The panel was made up of leading experts and included a retired chief constable of Cambridgeshire, Tom Lloyd, and the serving chief constable of Durham, Mike Barton. They know better than anyone the drain on police time caused by dealing with drug possession offences. The report, published on 8 March, is rational, wise and balanced. It points to a different approach, and the Bill seeks to implement that approach.

The proposed framework is based on the primary goal of protecting and enhancing public health and community safety, with a particular focus on the health and wellbeing of vulnerable and marginalised groups. It is guided by evidence and deliberately cautious and proposes regular reviews. It sets out plans to establish a cannabis regulatory authority. Producers and products

23 Mar 2016 : Column 1602

and sales would be licensed. Cannabis would be sold through licensed outlets. There would be mandatory provision of health advice to consumers at the point of sale. Cannabis would be sold in plain packaging. There would be a minimum age of 18 for the purchase and consumption of cannabis. Critically, there would be controls on potency, with a minimum requirement of 4% cannabidiol, which is important for reducing the risk of dependence, psychosis and memory loss. Of course, no such safeguards are available on the existing criminal-controlled market.

The expectation is that sales could raise up to £1 billion in tax. There would be significant savings of police time, enabling them to focus on serious and violent crime. Limited amounts of home growing for personal use would be permitted, with an enforceable limit of plants per household. The scheme would also permit small-scale licensed production for membership-based cannabis social clubs similar to those that have existed for years in Spain. They would have to be operated on a not-for-profit basis and would be subject to conditions, including limiting the size of clubs to fewer than 100 adult members and limiting per-member production and supply. It would remain a serious criminal offence to drive while impaired by cannabis.

I understand why many people’s first instinct might be to fear the consequences of legalising cannabis, yet thinking through the disastrous consequences of maintaining prohibition of this drug—the profiting of criminals, the health risks resulting from people not knowing what they are buying, the criminalising of so many people, including those with mental ill health and multiple sclerosis—leads to the recognition that a new, more rational approach is desperately needed.

Question put and agreed to.


That Norman Lamb, Tim Farron, Mr Nick Clegg, Tom Brake, Mr Alistair Carmichael, Caroline Lucas, Paul Flynn, Michael Fabricant, Crispin Blunt and Mr Peter Lilley present the Bill.

Norman Lamb accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 April, and to be printed (Bill 156).

23 Mar 2016 : Column 1603

High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill

[Relevant documents: Ninth Report from the Transport Committee, Session 2013-14, High speed rail: on track?, HC 851, and the Government Response, HC 1085; Oral evidence taken before the Transport Committee on 25 March 2014, High speed rail: update, HC 1193; Oral evidence taken before the Transport Committee on 17 November 2014, on HS2: update, HC 793; Sixth Report of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Follow up to PHSO Report of an investigation into a complaint about HS2 Ltd, HC 793; Second Special Report from the Select Committee on the High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill, High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill, HC 129; First Special Report from the Select Committee on the High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill, High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill, HC 698; First Special Report of Session 2014-15 from the Select Committee on the High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill, High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill, HC 338.]

Consideration of Bill, as amended in the Select Committee, not amended in the Public Bill Committee

New Clause 19

Vocational qualifications

‘(1) The Secretary of State must prepare a report on vocational qualifications obtained in each financial year in connection with HS2 construction.

(2) Each such report must contain an account of vocational qualifications gained by individuals employed in constructing the network referred to in section 1(1), in preparing for such construction, and in connected and ancillary activities, broken down by type of qualification and activity.

(3) Each such report must contain an overall assessment of the costs of vocational training for relevant qualifications and by whom such costs were incurred.

(4) In this section, “financial year” means—

(a) the period beginning with the day on which this Act is passed and ending;

(b) each subsequent period of 12 months.

(5) The Secretary of State must lay each report under this section before Parliament as soon as is reasonably practicable after the end of the financial year to which it relates.”— (Mr Goodwill.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

2.16 pm

The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill): 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 1—Reimbursement of local authorities for expenses and lost business rate revenue resulting from HS2

‘(1) The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and the Secretary of State for Transport shall conduct an assessment of costs incurred by local authorities that arise directly and indirectly from the construction and future operation of HS2, including staff costs, and shall ensure that such additional funding as is required to reimburse local authorities for those costs is made available.

23 Mar 2016 : Column 1604

(2) To the extent that such additional funding is not made available through service level agreements, the Secretary of State for Transport shall make the additional funding available through other means of local authority funding within six months of the end of the relevant financial year.

(3) The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government shall appoint an independent auditor to assess the extent of any shortfall in local authority revenue attributable to closure of or movement of businesses and consequential diminution in business rates.

(4) The Secretary of State for Transport shall establish a mechanism whereby any such shortfall shall be made good within six months of the end of the relevant financial year.’

This new clause is intended to give statutory enforceability to the Department for Transport’s intention to reimburse local authorities for costs consequential on the construction of HS2, and to ensure that there is compensation for lost business rate revenue.

New clause 2—Reimbursement of local authorities for damage to highways resulting from HS2 construction

‘The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and the Secretary of State for Transport shall conduct six-monthly assessments of the amounts required to repair and make good highways in each county following construction of HS2 Phase One, and shall ensure that such additional funding as is required to meet those amounts is made available to local authorities.’

This new clause is intended 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.

New clause 3—Amount of funds allocated to the Business and Local Economy Fund and Community and Environments Fund

‘The Secretary of State for Transport shall allocate a sum of £150,000,000 to the funds established to support business and local economy and community and environment initiatives to mitigate and address the effects of HS2 construction.’

This new clause 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 £30m to £150m.

New clause 4—Compensation procedures

‘(1) The Secretary of State for Transport shall ensure that included within contested valuation procedures for claimants under statutory or discretionary HS2 compensation schemes are processes for valuation by a valuer with knowledge of local markets.

(2) The Secretary of State shall ensure that all compensation applications are acknowledged within a period of two weeks and responded to substantively within a period of ten weeks, failing which the application will be deemed accepted.’

This new clause is intended to insert procedures for valuation by local valuers in disputed compensation cases, and to seek to ensure timely responses to compensation applications.

New clause 20—Public Sector Operators

‘(1) Section 25 of the Railways Act 1993 (c. 43) (public-sector operators not to be franchisees) does not apply in relation to the franchisee in respect of a franchise agreement—

(a) which relates wholly or mainly to the provision of one or more Phase One of High Speed 2 passenger services, or

(b) which relates wholly or mainly to the provision of one or more other services for the carriage of passengers by railway where—

(i) the services run wholly or partly on the route of Phase One of High Speed 2, and

(ii) the services are likely to be subject to substantial disruption because of the construction of Phase One of High Speed 2.

23 Mar 2016 : Column 1605

(2) The following may in particular be taken into account in determining whether, for the purposes of subsection (1)(b), services are likely to be subject to substantial disruption—

(a) the frequency with which the services are likely to be disrupted,

(b) the duration of the period in which the services are likely to be disrupted (and, in particular, its duration relative to the length of the franchise term),

(c) the severity of any likely disruption.

(3) In this section—

“franchisee”, “franchise agreement” and “franchise term” have the meanings given by section 23 of the Railways Act 1993 (designated passenger services to be provided under franchise agreements).’

New clause 21—Financial Reports

‘(1) The Secretary of State must prepare a report on expenditure under this Act in relation to each financial year.

(2) Each report must contain details of—

(a) expenditure incurred during the financial year to which the report relates (with capital and resource expenditure specified separately in relation to construction and other activity under this Act and in respect of each head of expenditure referred to in section 1(4)(a) to (c) of the High Speed Rail (Preparation) Act 2013);

(b) the extent to which expenditure incurred during that year represents an overspend or underspend as against the budget for such expenditure for the year;

(c) the likely effect of any such overspend or underspend on a total budget of £55.7 billion in 2015 prices (which includes construction and the cost of rolling stock);

(d) total expenditure incurred under section 67 up to the end of that year;

(e) sums or assets received in that year in connection with expenditure incurred under this Act, including in relation to section 48.

(3) In this section, “financial year” means—

(a) the period beginning with the day on which this Act is passed and ending;

(b) each subsequent period of 12 months.

(4) The Secretary of State must lay each report under this section before Parliament as soon as is reasonably practicable after the end of the financial year to which it relates.’

New clause 26—Protection of business continuity by extended notice of entry in the case of vulnerable businesses

‘(1) If an operator of a business or undertaking believes that the business or undertaking’s continued operation or profitability would be vulnerable if inadequate notice is received of the planned exercise of powers under sections 4, 5, 6, 12 or 15 of this Act and the associated schedules, the operator may notify the Secretary of State of this belief.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), “inadequate notice” means a period of notice that would not provide a reasonable amount of time for the business or undertaking to relocate to a new premises and refit that premises to a reasonable standard before the exercise of the powers.

(3) Upon receipt of such notification, the Secretary of State must facilitate a dialogue with the operator in relation to timing and funding of business relocation, and required notice periods, and shall consider the reasons for the operator’s belief.

(4) Unless the dialogue provides a satisfactory resolution within three months of initial notification—

(a) a 12-month minimum notice period shall apply for the exercise of powers mentioned in subsection (1) in relation to the relevant business or undertaking; and

23 Mar 2016 : Column 1606

(b) the early compensation payable to the operator shall be 100%, not 90%, of the estimated relocation costs, and such compensation shall be payable in full, nine months before the anticipated relocation date notified by the operator.”

New clause 27—Report on classification of HS2 as England-only project

‘Within 3 months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on—

(a) the classification of HS2 as an England-only project for the purposes of Treasury expenditure, and

(b) how much extra money Wales would receive in terms of Barnett consequential money as a result of such classification.’

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to produce a report on reclassifying HS2 as an England-only project for the purposes of calculating Treasury expenditure through the Barnett Formula and how much more money Wales would have received as a result.

New clause 30—Community detriment fund

‘(1) The Secretary of State must establish a community detriment fund.

(2) The community detriment fund will provide an additional source of funding to communities, supplemental to that available through the community and environment fund.

(3) The community detriment fund will be available to address adverse impacts of HS2 construction on communities, including but not limited to impaired accessibility, diminution in availability of community amenities, and physical effects of construction.

(4) A principal objective of the fund will be to remove the need for formal compensation claims and to provide an expedited means of claiming funding for detriment.

(5) The fund will be available only to address adverse effects on communities, not impacts on individual households, businesses or undertakings.

(6) Among the measures that may be considered as available for funding to address detriment shall be transport facilities such as shuttle services.’

New clause 32—Review of fairness of rural support zone compensation

‘The Secretary of State must conduct a review of the reasons for situating the boundary of the Rural Support Zone in west London which shall be laid before both House of Parliament within three months of this Bill receiving Royal Assent.’

New clause 33—Compensation

‘(1) Within three months of this Bill receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State shall lay before both Houses of Parliament a report responding to a review of compensation applicable to those affected by HS2 Phases One and Two which shall by then have reported in accordance with directions already issued.

(2) The review shall consider the following—

(a) whether a compensation framework based on a property bond system could be an equally or more effective means of compensating those affected by blight from HS2 construction and operation while maintaining a functioning property market, having due regard to demands on public expenditure and investment;

(b) whether the current rateable value limit for compensation and blight claims by owner-occupiers of business premises should be abolished or amended;

(c) whether loss payment ceilings are fair and appropriate;

(d) whether a higher proportion of advance compensation for relocation than the current 90% should be payable in certain instances;

23 Mar 2016 : Column 1607

(e) whether the time limits for claiming compensation where no land is taken should be re-evaluated;

(f) the position of those affected by blight caused by HS2 whose property is subject to mortgage and who may find themselves unable to remortgage or in a position of negative equity as a result of such blight;

(g) whether those considering a claim for compensation should receive advance payment of fees for professional advice.’

Amendment 15, in clause 48, page 18, line 8, after “considers” insert

“having regard to the relevant development plan,”.

Mr Goodwill: I must confess that feel like a queue-jumper, because I added my name and the Government’s support to new clause 19 and amendment 15 only last night. I will be brief, because I know that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) will want to expand on them and to explain why his case was so convincing and compelling. It is another example of how our new railway will be delivered not only on a cross-party basis in this House, but with the support of the great cities of the midlands and the north.

I welcome new clause 19 on vocational qualifications. I strongly believe in the importance of ensuring that we utilise the opportunities that HS2 will create for skills and jobs, which is why we have invested in the National College for High Speed Rail. New clause 19 will further bolster the importance of delivering skills as part of the development of HS2. As such, the Government support it becoming part of the Bill.

Sir Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con): I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, because I know that he needs to get on. Does he agree that it is important that the National Construction College and the Construction Industry Training Board are closely involved in this skills initiative?

Mr Goodwill: Indeed, I look forward to being in Doncaster soon with the right hon. Member for Doncaster Central (Dame Rosie Winterton), the Opposition Chief Whip, to cut the first sod in that project. It is important that we look at skills across the board. The college’s hub and spoke arrangement will enable other educational establishments to engage fully and will allow for other qualifications.

Similarly, I welcome amendment 15 from the Opposition. It relates to clause 48, the purpose of which is to ensure that the regeneration opportunities presented by HS2 are maximised in a timely manner. It is a backstop power and we expect that local authorities will lead such opportunities using their existing powers, but in the event that development is impeded, we will have the ability to step in to ensure that development progresses. It is important that such development takes into account relevant development plans. I am grateful that the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) tabled the amendment, and I urge all hon. and right hon. Members to support it.

Turning to the other proposed changes, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) has proposed several new clauses and amendments. She has been a tireless advocate for her constituents affected by HS2. However, all her points have been considered before, at length, through the

23 Mar 2016 : Column 1608

Select Committee process, parliamentary debates, and the many parliamentary questions she has asked my Department. The process has delivered clear benefits to her constituency, including a 2.6 km tunnel extension, meaning that almost 86% of the route in her constituency is tunnelled with the rest in a cutting. Her constituency has also benefited from the removal of an area of sustainable placement at Hunts Green and more noise barriers along that cutting. I acknowledge the points made but do not believe that new clauses 1 to 4 should be added to the Bill.

New clause 20 deals with the nationalisation of rail services, an area of ideological difference between the Government and the Opposition. I am therefore unlikely to convince them on it, and, I suspect, vice versa. It is clear to the Government that the franchising process delivers better services, better value for money and a better railway. Since privatisation, the rail industry has been transformed, with the number of passenger journeys more than doubling over the past 20 years. We believe this remains the right approach overall for Britain’s railway.

In any case, the new clause is unnecessary, as under the existing legislative framework it is possible for the state to operate rail services, as happened temporarily on the east coast main line. It is possible, and indeed quite likely, that the state might run HS2 initially, to prove certainty on operation and passenger numbers, but for the long-term successful future of HS2, a privately operated franchise is the best way forward.

Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op): The Minister is giving a pretty fair assessment of how he sees this proceeding. The new clause provides for a permissive power, meaning that it would simply be available going forward. The proposal has been mirrored in previous pieces of legislation, such as that dealing with Crossrail, so what is the Government’s objection to a permissive clause of this kind?

Mr Goodwill: I thought I just said that this power is already available and therefore this is a superfluous new clause and we do not need it to give us these powers. I very much doubt Opposition Members will agree with my view that nationalisation of the railways is not the way forward, so stuck as they seem to be in the 1970s, but I hope I may have provided sufficient explanation as to why this power is not required.

We have given consideration to the other proposed new clauses and amendments. Although I understand the importance of some of the issues raised, I do not believe they belong in the Bill, as they have already been considered during the Select Committee process. To conclude, in order not to take up any more time than is necessary, I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will be able to support the inclusion of new clause 19 and amendment 15, but I urge them to not to press the other proposals, which I do not believe are required.

Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab): I am pleased to be able to contribute to this important debate and play a part in this Bill’s progress. We fully appreciate the importance of this vital piece of infrastructure and the benefits it will bring to our country for generations to come. It is not common to find such consensus in this House, but I am pleased that both the Government and

23 Mar 2016 : Column 1609

the Opposition understand the need for this high-speed railway. HS2 was, of course, the brainchild of the previous Labour Government, but I readily acknowledge the work that the current Government have done in progressing the project. It is to be very much welcomed for the country that we have such consensus across the House on such important national infrastructure projects.

In that same vein, I shall discuss new clause 19, which stands in the name of the Minister, as well as in my name, those of some of his colleagues and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood). It deals with vocational qualifications.

Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con): Just in case it might be thought that there is not still entrenched opposition to these proposals, may I say, speaking not only for myself but for many of my colleagues and for people in Staffordshire, where we get no benefit from this scheme at all, given the damage it is doing to our countryside, that I wish to register opposition to this in its entirety?

Andy McDonald: I think I used the word “consensus” not “unanimity”. I sincerely thank the Minister for his constructive approach to this issue and for adding his name to mine by way of support. There is agreement across the House that both jobs and skills are a core part of the case for HS2, and I note that the recent Shaw report calls for much deeper strategic engagement of trade unions across the rail industry. Accordingly, may I take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister and HS2 Ltd for their positive engagement with the TUC in securing an agreement to make sure that trade unions, HS2 and its suppliers work together to maximise HS2’s economic and labour market potential?

John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): Is the hon. Gentleman at all worried about the possible job impact on the existing railway, because most of the passengers for this line are going to come from journeys that would otherwise have been made on existing trains? Presumably, there will therefore be a decline in fares, revenue and job opportunity on the existing railway.

Andy McDonald: The right hon. Gentleman misses the point: this is about having a positive impact on capacity issues. That is the singular and most important purpose of this development.

In the words of the magnificent Frances O’Grady:

“It is clear that trade union engagement is vital to ensuring that HS2 is delivered to time and to budget—and that it is delivered in a manner that reflects the best of socially responsible development.”

The agreement contains the commitment to pay the voluntary living wage—and the voluntary London living wage—and to offer a minimum number of apprenticeships and workforce skills development, among other things. The agreement is an excellent example of how industrial relations should be approached from the outset in projects of this magnitude, and indeed throughout the construction industry, and I hope that it can be the template for good practice throughout industry. The construction of such infrastructure projects places demands on a nation to provide the necessary skilled workforce, creating opportunities for people, and younger people in particular, to equip themselves with not just the vocational qualifications to assist in the construction of this railway,

23 Mar 2016 : Column 1610

but the tools necessary to forge careers that will be of benefit to both themselves and the nation long after the completion of HS2. Labour Members welcome the fact that, following on from the success of the Kings Cross construction skills centre, a National College for High Speed Rail will be located both in Birmingham and Doncaster, providing specialist vocational training to the next generation of engineers working on HS2 and beyond. We also welcome the fact that HS2 Ltd will provide £4.1 million towards a Euston construction skills centre.

Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con): I, too, am sorry to break the cosy consensus of the two Front-Bench teams, who seem to be conspiring to spend possibly £100 billion of taxpayers’ money on what I believe to be a white elephant. Does the shadow Minister have no concern at all about supporting the Government on a major infrastructure project where the cost-benefit ratio is as low as £1.40 for every pound spent?

Andy McDonald: Let me clarify that this is not about a cosy consensus; it is about rigorous examination. There has been a forensic examination of this matter through a lengthy Select Committee and a Bill Committee. The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong about the cost-benefit ratio. The correct figure is 2.3:1.

Andrew Bridgen rose

Andy McDonald: I have already given way and I must now make some progress.

The Government estimate that as many as 2,000 apprenticeship opportunities will be created by HS2, and there will be about 25,000 people employed during its construction. That is welcomed by Members from all parts of the House. Because of the importance of the creation of vocational qualifications in connection with HS2’s construction, we feel it is appropriate that Parliament is given proper oversight on progress in this regard. That is why we tabled new clause 19, which will impose a duty on the Secretary of State to prepare an annual report on vocational qualifications obtained in each financial year in connection with HS2 construction. It seems to us to be eminently sensible for the Secretary of State to report annually on the progress of the creation of vocational qualifications, and I am grateful that the Government have accepted that the new clause should be part of the Bill.

Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con): I support the new clause. Will this annual report capture people gaining qualifications not only through HS2 Ltd and the key construction companies, but further up the supply chain?

Andy McDonald: The new clause is focused principally on HS2 Ltd, but the hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. I am sure the Minister and the Secretary of State are listening intently to him. The intention must be to embrace all those within the supply chain.

Amendment 15 would make a small change to clause 48. It simply seeks to insert a requirement that as and when the Secretary of State considers that there is an opportunity for regeneration or development, and land is to be acquired compulsorily for that purpose, regard be had

23 Mar 2016 : Column 1611

to the relevant development plans that obtain in respect of that particular location. I am grateful that such a modest and reasonable amendment finds favour with the Government.

New clause 21 deals with financial reports. It would impose a duty on the Secretary of State to prepare an annual report on expenditure in each financial year. Each report would contain details of any overspend or underspend against the budget for such expenditure for the year, as well as the likely effect on the total budget.

2.30 pm

Labour has been consistent in seeking to hold the Government to account on the cost of HS2, and this new clause would put greater transparency into the process and ensure that Parliament has proper oversight of expenditure. I am aware that expenditure under the Bill would also be reported as part of the Department’s annual report and accounts, but it is our belief that a project with these costs and on the scale of HS2 warrants more detailed oversight of expenditure from Parliament.

Considering that much of the opposition to HS2 has been because of the cost of the project and concerns about ballooning prices, it would be prudent of the Government to allay some of those concerns by ensuring that parliamentarians and the public keep a keen eye on the cost of it. The Prime Minister has previously stated that sunlight is the best disinfectant, and if the Government would like such sentiments to be accepted as more than empty sloganeering then, hopefully, they will support this new clause, which introduces into the process a greater degree of transparency in expenditure.

New clause 20, on public sector operators, would disapply section 25 of the Railways Act 1993, allowing, but not requiring, phase 1 of HS2 passenger services to be run by the public sector. I hope that this does not affect the spirit of consensus and agreement. I am delighted that Labour is committed to the public ownership of the railways. Public opinion on that issue is clear: around two thirds of the public support the nation’s railways being run by the public sector, with fewer than one in five opposing the policy. Public ownership is backed by people across the political spectrum—by Labour, Tory, Lib Dem and UK Independence party voters, although, unfortunately, it is not backed by the latter three parties in this place.

When one looks back at the history of rail privatisation and its impact on the commuting public, it is not difficult to understand why there is overwhelming public support for bringing railway services back into public ownership. Quite simply, the Tory privatisation of British Rail was a rushed, botched job that had more to do with ideology than any clear plan for the railways. The legacy that we have been left with is a fragmented, inefficient and expensive network.

Sir Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con) rose

Andy McDonald: I will make some progress.

Sir Simon Burns: Come on!

Andy McDonald: No, I will crack on.

23 Mar 2016 : Column 1612

Several hon. Members rose

Andy McDonald: I will give way in a moment.

According to the McNulty report, the fragmentation of our rail network has left us with an efficiency gap of between 30% and 40% compared with other European networks, which means that the money that should be used to address the cost of travel and to fund much needed investment is needlessly wasted.

Sir Simon Burns: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. We had this litany from him, which was put just as eloquently, upstairs in Committee. I wish to ask him this: first, if the privatisation of the railways was such a disaster and disservice to the travelling public, why do we now have record levels of people using the railways; and secondly, why did the last Labour Government not renationalise it during their 13 years in power?

Andy McDonald: I am happy to answer the right hon. Gentleman. It was because the last Labour Government put record investment into the railways and made it the safest railway in Europe. We were clearing up the mess of that botched privatisation of Railtrack, which cost people’s lives. We made the network safe.

We have been left with a ticketing system that is the most expensive and confusing in Europe. Indeed, commuter fares are up by a quarter since 2010, having risen three times faster than wage growth. What the public clearly do not accept is that private and many foreign state-owned companies receive subsidies from the UK taxpayer and make significant profits at the expense of rail passengers.

Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con): Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that?

Andy McDonald: I will carry on, because I know that people want to contribute to the debate.

In illustrating the benefits of publicly owned operators, one could hardly ask for a better example than the recent east coast main line. The last Labour Government took the important step of bringing that back into public operation after the private operator reneged on its obligations in 2009. East coast proved itself to be one of the most efficient operators, returning more than £1 billion to the taxpayer in premium payments as well as investing every penny of profit back into the service. In addition, fares were kept down in real terms in 2014 at a time when no privately run franchise took the same step. East coast had record passenger satisfaction and its engagement with the workforce was an unparalleled success.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Patrick McLoughlin): I am sure that the shadow Minister will welcome the new service that will be starting from Middlesbrough as a result of the Virgin franchise, which will serve his constituents and provide new trains.

Andy McDonald: Of course I welcome it; it would be churlish not to. Why would I not welcome that? It does not mean that the system is right, but, for goodness sake, the trains are getting to the right places.

It is difficult to see how east coast’s brilliant delivery for the taxpayer and for the commuter could be seen as

23 Mar 2016 : Column 1613

a failure, or in any way undesirable. It simply does not make any sense for the UK taxpayer to subsidise foreign state-owned companies so that citizens of Germany, Holland, France and elsewhere can enjoy cheaper and superior services.

Quite simply, the rejection of even the possibility of public ownership is driven by an outdated ideology and is totally out of kilter with the views of a large majority of the public—including many Conservative voters—which is why I am so pleased that Labour is committed to a publicly owned service that puts the passenger first rather than the profits of private or foreign state-owned companies, as is currently the case.

John Redwood rose

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

23 Mar 2016 : Column 1614

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

23 Mar 2016 : Column 1615

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.

2.45 pm

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 is 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

23 Mar 2016 : Column 1616

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 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 whether, for example, the fund 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

23 Mar 2016 : Column 1617

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.

23 Mar 2016 : Column 1618

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.

Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con): Does the hon. Lady agree that a link between Euston and St Pancras might offer an opportunity for jobs? My constituents thought they would be able to get on a train in Birmingham and end up in Paris, but instead they have to schlep across London with their heavy bags. Another possible link is one between Curzon Street and New Street, so that there might actually be a connected railway, which at present there is not.

Mrs Ellman: The hon. Gentleman makes some important points that are worthy of consideration. I believe the decision likely to be taken later this evening will be the beginning of a very important High Speed 2 network, which may well expand after more people see its benefits.

New clause 19 refers to the need to look at the qualifications achieved by people working on the construction of High Speed 2. I agree with that, but it should be extended a little to include the diversity of qualifications and employment opportunities that can be offered during construction—the wide range of skills that can be obtained and the potential to attract a wide range of people who could benefit. I hope the aims of the new clause can be extended, if not in words tonight, then in the way it is implemented. I am particularly pleased to see the plans for the skills college at both Birmingham and Doncaster, and I hope they can be extended.

It is important, and it is implicit in some of the amendments, that economic development in the areas and regions through which High Speed 2 passes is maximised, working with the local enterprise partnerships,

23 Mar 2016 : Column 1619

local authorities and business. It should not be just the stations through which High Speed 2 passes that benefit, but the surrounding region.

I also support the proposals to monitor expenditure on High Speed 2, because it is important that the scheme is kept within budget: over £50 billion is a lot of money, even over 20 years.

3 pm

People have become unduly focused on the current benefit-cost ratio, which is calculated very specifically. Indeed, looking at the overall network and the wider economic benefits, that ratio is likely to expand to at least 2.3:1, but it is calculated rather restrictively. Under current regulations, the benefit can be calculated for only 67 years, and an assumption is made that the number of passengers on the line will increase by 2.2% annually and then stop in 2036, which is most unlikely. I think it is very likely that the benefit-cost ratio will increase.

We all need to have some vision in looking at what is required for the future. We need more capacity on the very popular and important railway, an essential part of public transport, bringing job opportunities—for example, in construction—and economic development to the regions and not around the stations. For those reasons, I support a number of the amendments proposed today.

Several hon. Members rose

Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing): Order. I trust that hon. Members will now be very brief, because we have only 15 minutes left for this part of the debate.

Mr Grieve: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I shall be brief.

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman). I am mindful of the fact that, in promoting this scheme, the Government can make a powerful and perfectly rational case. Indeed, the hon. Lady highlighted some of the points that have been raised. The difficulty that I have, as a constituency MP directly affected by the scheme, is that throughout the whole process of engagement between HS2 and my constituents, HS2’s behaviour towards my constituents has consistently been wanting, both in sensitivity and in its levels of engagement. I have to say that the way in which HS2’s management has dealt with perfectly reasonable objections from people who are very anxious about the future of their communities has led me to be deeply anxious about how this will actually work out in practice.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan), in presenting this batch of amendments, has highlighted some key areas where the Government, by providing some greater reassurance, could go a considerable way towards not satisfying everybody—inevitably some people will remain dissatisfied with the proposals—but providing them with reassurance that some of their worst fears about how this will pan out in practice are misplaced. For example, there has been considerable concern about the way in which compensation is calculated. There have been arguments about failure to take account of local features.

23 Mar 2016 : Column 1620

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con): I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for giving way on that point; I intervene because I had wanted to speak on this new clause but now will not have time. We heard cases in the Select Committee where it was quite clear that the lack of local valuers is doing an injustice to the people whose homes are being acquired. Does he agree that the Government must put that injustice right? The Select Committee made very strong recommendations about that aspect. This injustice must be put right.

Mr Grieve: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Yes, these are precisely the areas where Government intervention would be valuable. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench, even at this late hour, to give this careful consideration.

There is a similar story on the relationship with local authorities. Most of our local authorities, like all local authorities in this country, given the difficult conditions resulting from the continuing economic problems besetting our planet, are short of money to carry out important local projects. Therefore, the prospect of having their infrastructure ripped up during the construction process is inevitably a subject of legitimate concern to them. There is no proper reason why they and the local council tax payer should have to bear the end cost of any description on this project going ahead. Here again is an opportunity for my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench to beef this up and provide the necessary tools to ensure that HS2 honours these commitments.

I am no position to speak to HS2, and I do not understand why it has been so deficient in its approach to dealing with local communities, but that is the reality. I note from the Public Administration Committee’s most recent report that HS2 says that it has learnt its lessons and will do things differently in future. I very much hope that that is the case, but until I actually see it with my own eyes and witness it from the comments of my constituents, I have reason to continue to doubt that that will in fact happen. That is all the more reason why these amendments, which are straightforward and should not add to HS2’s costs, or indeed to the burden of carrying out the project, ought to be accepted.

Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab): I rise to support new clauses 26 and 32. Paradoxically, I agree with most of what has been said today, because I do think that it is possible to be pro-infrastructure investment, pro-progress and pro-brand new trains. I am pro the concept of high-speed rail, but I am not pro-HS2 Ltd and the, as the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) said, the rather cavalier way it operates. In the Select Committee its QC called my residents tedious, which I thought showed complete contempt for them.

New clause 26 is about protecting vulnerable businesses and the time given for relocation. I have spoken to some of the businesses in the Park Royal area of my constituency. The businesses there are quite mixed. Many of them deal with food preparation—for example, supplying olives to restaurants in the west end—and need to be close to the A40, which is a vital artery. They are family businesses. They have been told that when it happens they will be given three months to relocate. They have a

23 Mar 2016 : Column 1621

combined turnover in the millions. They are all extremely concerned that they will be forced to close because three months is not enough time for them to start again.

I spoke with a prop hire company. It occupies thousands of square feet of warehouse space, with antiques and big fat televisions behind wooden veneer cabinets. It supplies props for films such as “Star Wars”. It would find it very difficult to find alternative premises quickly. Those companies would also like an assurance of 100% compensation for their sites, not the 90% on offer.

The Conservative party is the party of business, surely. It is the party of small and medium-sized enterprises. [Interruption.] I think this new clause has genuine cross-party support, judging by the Members who have signed it. It is deeply worrying that those firms are being forced to move towards what is called extinguishment, because apparently their balance sheets do not show enough turnover, so HS2 considered their financial value to be too small to warrant relocation. That is a slap in the face and an insult to hard-working, small family businesses.

Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab): My hon. Friend is doing a brilliant job of representing her constituents, as she always does. Does she agree—I think this is the purpose of her new clauses—that it is often the businesses in urban areas that are the most fragile and therefore the worst affected, but the levels of compensation and concern shown to them is the worst on offer—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing): Order. We do not have time for long interventions.

Dr Huq: My hon. Friend puts it very well. He anticipates my new clause 32, which is about the fairness of the rural support zone. I know the constituency of the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) well, because she and I were on the same ballot paper in 2005. She represents a rural constituency, but the urban and suburban constituencies, such as mine and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), are not treated the same as rural support zones. I believe that needs to be looked at.

One house in my constituency has a zero valuation—you could not make this up. Someone wanted to re-mortgage a house in Wells House Road, and the mortgage valuer came up with zero. That would not happen elsewhere. For the sake of fairness, that should be looked at. There seems to be a wrong assumption—[Interruption.] Madam Deputy Speaker, I am aware that there is about to be a vote, so I will say my last sentence. We should not accept that suburban or urban dwellers should simply put up with it. I urge Members to support my two new clauses.

Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con): I rise to speak to the new clauses in my name and to put the case of my constituents in North Warwickshire, which is arguably the most blighted part of the HS2 route, outside of London.

I would like to use the short time available to make a final case to the Government to adopt vital protections for local communities such as Kingsbury, Water Orton, Coleshill, Middleton, Lea Marston and Wishaw. Those protections are set out in my three new clauses, as well as in provisions tabled by other right hon. and hon. Members, which I have co-signed.

23 Mar 2016 : Column 1622

A recurring theme my constituents have faced is the lack of engagement from HS2 Ltd during the process to date. Many of the questions that have been asked of the company remain unanswered, and its credibility locally is in tatters. Those affected by HS2 have little confidence that communication will get better during the construction stage; indeed, unsurprisingly, the fear is that, should the Bill be approved by the House, communication will get worse.

That is why I seek greater protection for North Warwickshire residents. As a result of the impact on our area, we have been given an assurance by HS2 that we are a special case. Sadly, despite numerous requests, the company has neglected to advise us what that protection actually is, what the benefits are or even what it covers. After what my constituents have had to endure over the last six years, they deserve better. They deserve some kind of certainty and an acknowledgment that HS2 and the Government are sympathetic to their case.

That is why I have introduced new clause 30, which would set up a community fund to protect local communities from the unintended consequences that could arise in the construction phase. The fund would supplement the community and environment fund, and it would address the adverse impacts of HS2’s construction on communities in terms of things such as impaired accessibility, the reduction in the availability of community amenities and the physical effects of construction.

A principal objective of the fund will be to remove the need for formal compensation claims and to provide an expedited means of claiming funding for detriment. The fund would be available only to address adverse effects on communities, not impacts on individual households, businesses or undertakings. However, among the things that may be considered as eligible for funding would be transport facilities such as shuttle services.

As I have stated, the Kingsbury area and the surrounding villages are clearly a special case in the context of the HS2 scheme, and there can be no argument about that. Engagement with our community needs to address the requirements that come with that special place, and my other new clauses address the current lack of communication, including in terms of referral, escalation and monitoring. Crucially, they seek to ensure that local people’s complaints are resolved in a timely manner.

We will hear further arguments later today in the Chamber about HS2’s environmental impact, and it is hard to imagine the change to the landscape that the railhead in Kingsbury will bring, but my constituents will be forced to live with that change.

I urge the Secretary of State to consider my proposed changes to the Bill and those of other right hon. and hon. Members, which I have supported in the interests of our constituents. Our proposals offer common-sense initiatives to support, and offer mitigation to, those people along the proposed line who need it most.

Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC): I did have a very detailed speech on this important issue for Wales, but I am afraid that time will defeat me, so I will be as quick as possible.

Ministers will know of my long-standing concerns about the Barnett classification of HS2. The Plaid Cymru position has always been that this is an England-only railway. All the destinations on the map are clearly in

23 Mar 2016 : Column 1623

England. The position of the UK Government has always been that this is a UK-Government railway scheme. However, when it came to the statement of funding policy document that accompanied the comprehensive spending review, the railway is an England and Wales railway, because Scotland and Northern Ireland had a 100% Barnett rating for HS2, while Wales had 0% rating.

The impact of that, in a project that may well cost more than £80 billion over the next 20 years, will be severe for my country—in terms of not only HS2, but the precedent set for HS3, Crossrail 2 and the Sheffield-to-Manchester subterranean road. These are massive multibillion-pound projects, and Wales is losing out.

This is an issue of fairness, and unless the Minister says on Third Reading that he will address the issues I have raised in my new clause, my colleagues and I will vote against the Government on Third Reading.

Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP): I will be brief. The SNP welcomes this investment. Although, as has been said, the initial roll-out of the route is in England only, we see the benefits that this can bring to Scotland, and we welcome the aspiration for a sub-three-hour journey time to Glasgow and Edinburgh. I welcome the fact that the Minister says trains will run to Scotland on day one.

On the back of the comments by the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) about Barnett, I would ask the Secretary of State to consider the wider issue of Barnett consequentials and the estimates process. There needs to be more clarity on that, but I welcome the investment in HS2.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 19 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 20

Public Sector Operators

‘(1) Section 25 of the Railways Act 1993 (c. 43) (public-sector operators not to be franchisees) does not apply in relation to the franchisee in respect of a franchise agreement—

(a) which relates wholly or mainly to the provision of one or more Phase One of High Speed 2 passenger services, or

(b) which relates wholly or mainly to the provision of one or more other services for the carriage of passengers by railway where—

(i) the services run wholly or partly on the route of Phase One of High Speed 2, and

(ii) the services are likely to be subject to substantial disruption because of the construction of Phase One of High Speed 2.

(2) The following may in particular be taken into account in determining whether, for the purposes of subsection (1)(b), services are likely to be subject to substantial disruption—

(a) the frequency with which the services are likely to be disrupted,

(b) the duration of the period in which the services are likely to be disrupted (and, in particular, its duration relative to the length of the franchise term),

(c) the severity of any likely disruption.

23 Mar 2016 : Column 1624

(3) In this section—

“franchisee”, “franchise agreement” and “franchise term” have the meanings given by section 23 of the Railways Act 1993 (designated passenger services to be provided under franchise agreements).”—(Andy McDonald.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

The House divided:

Ayes 184, Noes 273.

Division No. 228]


3.15 pm


Abrahams, Debbie

Alexander, Heidi

Ali, Rushanara

Anderson, Mr David

Ashworth, Jonathan

Barron, rh Kevin

Beckett, rh Margaret

Benn, rh Hilary

Berger, Luciana

Blackman-Woods, Dr Roberta

Blenkinsop, Tom

Blomfield, Paul

Bradshaw, rh Mr Ben

Brake, rh Tom

Brennan, Kevin

Brown, Lyn

Brown, rh Mr Nicholas

Buck, Ms Karen

Burden, Richard

Burgon, Richard

Butler, Dawn

Byrne, rh Liam

Cadbury, Ruth

Campbell, rh Mr Alan

Campbell, Mr Ronnie

Champion, Sarah

Chapman, Jenny

Clwyd, rh Ann

Coaker, Vernon

Coffey, Ann

Cooper, Julie

Cooper, rh Yvette

Corbyn, rh Jeremy

Cox, Jo

Coyle, Neil

Creagh, Mary

Creasy, Stella

Cruddas, Jon

Cryer, John

Cummins, Judith

Cunningham, Alex

Cunningham, Mr Jim

Dakin, Nic

Danczuk, Simon

Davies, Geraint

De Piero, Gloria

Doughty, Stephen

Dowd, Jim

Dowd, Peter

Dromey, Jack

Eagle, Ms Angela

Eagle, Maria

Edwards, Jonathan

Efford, Clive

Elliott, Julie

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Evans, Chris

Farrelly, Paul

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Fletcher, Colleen

Flint, rh Caroline

Flynn, Paul

Fovargue, Yvonne

Gardiner, Barry

Glass, Pat

Glindon, Mary

Green, Kate

Greenwood, Lilian

Greenwood, Margaret

Griffith, Nia

Hamilton, Fabian

Harris, Carolyn

Hayes, Helen

Hayman, Sue

Hepburn, Mr Stephen

Hillier, Meg

Hodgson, Mrs Sharon

Hoey, Kate

Hopkins, Kelvin

Howarth, rh Mr George

Hunt, Tristram

Huq, Dr Rupa

Hussain, Imran

Jarvis, Dan

Johnson, rh Alan

Jones, Gerald

Jones, Susan Elan

Keeley, Barbara

Kendall, Liz

Kinnock, Stephen

Kyle, Peter

Lamb, rh Norman

Lavery, Ian

Leslie, Chris

Lewell-Buck, Mrs Emma

Lewis, Clive

Long Bailey, Rebecca

Lucas, Caroline

Lucas, Ian C.

Mactaggart, rh Fiona

Madders, Justin

Mahmood, Shabana

Malhotra, Seema

Mann, John

Marris, Rob

Marsden, Mr Gordon

Maskell, Rachael

Matheson, Christian

McCabe, Steve

McCarthy, Kerry

McDonald, Andy

McDonnell, Dr Alasdair

McDonnell, John

McFadden, rh Mr Pat

McGinn, Conor

McGovern, Alison

McInnes, Liz

Meale, Sir Alan

Mearns, Ian

Moon, Mrs Madeleine

Morden, Jessica

Morris, Grahame M.

Mulholland, Greg

Nandy, Lisa

Onn, Melanie

Onwurah, Chi

Osamor, Kate

Owen, Albert

Pearce, Teresa

Pennycook, Matthew

Phillips, Jess

Powell, Lucy

Pugh, John

Qureshi, Yasmin

Rayner, Angela

Reed, Mr Jamie

Reed, Mr Steve

Rees, Christina

Reeves, Rachel

Reynolds, Emma

Reynolds, Jonathan

Rimmer, Marie

Ritchie, Ms Margaret

Robinson, Mr Geoffrey

Saville Roberts, Liz

Sharma, Mr Virendra

Sheerman, Mr Barry

Sherriff, Paula

Shuker, Mr Gavin

Siddiq, Tulip

Skinner, Mr Dennis

Slaughter, Andy

Smeeth, Ruth

Smith, rh Mr Andrew

Smith, Angela

Smith, Cat

Smith, Nick

Smyth, Karin

Starmer, Keir

Stevens, Jo

Streeting, Wes

Stringer, Graham

Tami, Mark

Thomas, Mr Gareth

Thomas-Symonds, Nick

Thornberry, Emily

Timms, rh Stephen

Trickett, Jon

Turley, Anna

Twigg, Derek

Twigg, Stephen

Umunna, Mr Chuka

Vaz, rh Keith

Vaz, Valerie

West, Catherine

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Williams, Hywel

Williams, Mr Mark

Wilson, Phil

Winnick, Mr David

Winterton, rh Dame Rosie

Woodcock, John

Wright, Mr Iain

Zeichner, Daniel

Tellers for the Ayes:

Vicky Foxcroft


Jeff Smith


Afriyie, Adam

Aldous, Peter

Allan, Lucy

Allen, Heidi

Amess, Sir David

Andrew, Stuart

Ansell, Caroline

Argar, Edward

Atkins, Victoria

Bacon, Mr Richard

Baker, Mr Steve

Baldwin, Harriett

Barwell, Gavin

Bebb, Guto

Benyon, Richard

Beresford, Sir Paul

Berry, Jake

Bingham, Andrew

Blackman, Bob

Blunt, Crispin

Boles, Nick

Bone, Mr Peter

Borwick, Victoria

Bradley, Karen

Brady, Mr Graham

Brazier, Mr Julian

Bridgen, Andrew

Brine, Steve

Brokenshire, rh James

Buckland, Robert

Burns, Conor

Burns, rh Sir Simon

Burt, rh Alistair

Cairns, Alun

Carmichael, Neil

Carswell, Mr Douglas

Cartlidge, James

Cash, Sir William

Caulfield, Maria

Chalk, Alex

Chishti, Rehman

Churchill, Jo

Clark, rh Greg

Cleverly, James

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Coffey, Dr Thérèse

Collins, Damian

Colvile, Oliver

Costa, Alberto

Crabb, rh Stephen

Davies, Byron

Davies, Chris

Davies, David T. C.

Davies, Glyn

Davies, Dr James

Davies, Mims

Davies, Philip

Dinenage, Caroline

Djanogly, Mr Jonathan

Dodds, rh Mr Nigel

Donaldson, rh Mr Jeffrey M.

Double, Steve

Dowden, Oliver

Doyle-Price, Jackie

Drummond, Mrs Flick

Duddridge, James

Duncan Smith, rh Mr Iain

Dunne, Mr Philip

Elliott, Tom

Ellis, Michael

Ellison, Jane

Elphicke, Charlie

Eustice, George

Evans, Graham

Evennett, rh Mr David

Fabricant, Michael

Fernandes, Suella

Field, rh Mark

Foster, Kevin

Francois, rh Mr Mark

Frazer, Lucy

Freeman, George

Freer, Mike

Fuller, Richard

Fysh, Marcus

Gale, Sir Roger

Garnier, rh Sir Edward

Garnier, Mark

Gauke, Mr David

Ghani, Nusrat

Gibb, Mr Nick

Gillan, rh Mrs Cheryl

Glen, John

Goodwill, Mr Robert

Gove, rh Michael

Graham, Richard

Grant, Mrs Helen

Grayling, rh Chris

Green, Chris

Green, rh Damian

Greening, rh Justine

Grieve, rh Mr Dominic

Griffiths, Andrew

Gummer, Ben

Gyimah, Mr Sam

Halfon, rh Robert

Hall, Luke

Hammond, rh Mr Philip

Hammond, Stephen

Hancock, rh Matthew

Hands, rh Greg

Harper, rh Mr Mark

Harrington, Richard

Harris, Rebecca

Haselhurst, rh Sir Alan

Hayes, rh Mr John

Heald, Sir Oliver

Heappey, James

Heaton-Jones, Peter

Henderson, Gordon

Herbert, rh Nick

Hermon, Lady

Hinds, Damian

Hoare, Simon

Hollinrake, Kevin

Hollobone, Mr Philip

Holloway, Mr Adam

Hopkins, Kris

Howarth, Sir Gerald

Howell, John

Howlett, Ben

Huddleston, Nigel

Hunt, rh Mr Jeremy

Jackson, Mr Stewart

James, Margot

Javid, rh Sajid

Jayawardena, Mr Ranil

Jenkin, Mr Bernard

Jenkyns, Andrea

Jenrick, Robert

Johnson, Gareth

Johnson, Joseph

Jones, Andrew

Jones, rh Mr David

Jones, Mr Marcus

Kawczynski, Daniel

Kennedy, Seema

Kinahan, Danny

Kirby, Simon

Knight, rh Sir Greg

Knight, Julian

Kwarteng, Kwasi

Lancaster, Mark

Latham, Pauline

Lefroy, Jeremy

Leigh, Sir Edward

Leslie, Charlotte

Letwin, rh Mr Oliver

Lewis, Brandon

Lilley, rh Mr Peter

Loughton, Tim

Lumley, Karen

Mackinlay, Craig

Mackintosh, David

Main, Mrs Anne

Malthouse, Kit

Mann, Scott

Mathias, Dr Tania

May, rh Mrs Theresa

Maynard, Paul

McCartney, Jason

McCartney, Karl

McLoughlin, rh Mr Patrick

Menzies, Mark

Mercer, Johnny

Merriman, Huw

Metcalfe, Stephen

Mills, Nigel

Milton, rh Anne

Mordaunt, Penny

Morgan, rh Nicky

Morris, Anne Marie

Morris, David

Morris, James

Morton, Wendy

Mowat, David

Mundell, rh David

Murray, Mrs Sheryll

Murrison, Dr Andrew

Neill, Robert

Newton, Sarah

Nokes, Caroline

Nuttall, Mr David

Offord, Dr Matthew

Osborne, rh Mr George

Parish, Neil

Patel, rh Priti

Penrose, John

Perry, Claire

Philp, Chris

Poulter, Dr Daniel

Pow, Rebecca

Prentis, Victoria

Prisk, Mr Mark

Pursglove, Tom

Quince, Will

Raab, Mr Dominic

Redwood, rh John

Rees-Mogg, Mr Jacob

Robertson, Mr Laurence

Robinson, Mary

Rosindell, Andrew

Rudd, rh Amber

Rutley, David

Scully, Paul

Selous, Andrew

Shannon, Jim

Shapps, rh Grant

Sharma, Alok

Simpson, rh Mr Keith

Smith, Chloe

Smith, Henry

Smith, Julian

Smith, Royston

Soames, rh Sir Nicholas

Solloway, Amanda

Soubry, rh Anna

Spelman, rh Mrs Caroline

Spencer, Mark

Stephenson, Andrew

Stevenson, John

Stewart, Iain

Streeter, Mr Gary

Stride, Mel

Stuart, Graham

Sturdy, Julian

Sunak, Rishi

Swayne, rh Mr Desmond

Swire, rh Mr Hugo

Thomas, Derek

Throup, Maggie

Timpson, Edward

Tolhurst, Kelly

Tomlinson, Justin

Tomlinson, Michael

Tracey, Craig

Tredinnick, David

Trevelyan, Mrs Anne-Marie

Tugendhat, Tom

Turner, Mr Andrew

Tyrie, rh Mr Andrew

Vaizey, Mr Edward

Vara, Mr Shailesh

Vickers, Martin

Walker, Mr Charles

Walker, Mr Robin

Wallace, Mr Ben

Warburton, David

Warman, Matt

Watkinson, Dame Angela

Wharton, James

Whately, Helen

White, Chris

Whittaker, Craig

Whittingdale, rh Mr John

Wiggin, Bill

Williams, Craig

Williamson, rh Gavin

Wilson, Mr Rob

Wollaston, Dr Sarah

Wood, Mike

Wragg, William

Zahawi, Nadhim

Tellers for the Noes:

Guy Opperman


George Hollingbery

Question accordingly negatived.

23 Mar 2016 : Column 1625

23 Mar 2016 : Column 1626

23 Mar 2016 : Column 1627

3.28 pm

More than one hour having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on consideration, the proceedings were interrupted (Programme Order, 22 March).

The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).

Clause 48

Compulsory acquisition of land for regeneration or relocation

Amendment made: 15, in clause 48, page 18, line 8, after “considers” insert

“having regard to the relevant development plan,”—(Mr Goodwill.)

New Clause 6

Chilterns AONB Review Group

“(1) A Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Review Group shall be established.

(2) The members of the group shall include Buckinghamshire County Council, Chilterns District Council, Wycombe District Council, Aylesbury Vale District Council, the Chilterns Conservation Board, Natural England, key community groups and the nominated undertaker.

(3) The purpose of the group shall be to identify measures for environmental enhancement in the Chilterns to mitigate against the impact of HS2 railway construction.

(4) The group shall elect a Chair, who shall not be an employee of the nominated undertaker.

23 Mar 2016 : Column 1628

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

(6) The group shall make a twice yearly report with recommendations.

(7) In the event that the Secretary of State does not accept any recommendation of the group, they shall make a statement to the House within three months of the date of the report, indicating reasons.”—(Mrs Gillan.)

This new clause is intended to give statutory backing to the establishment and powers of the Chilterns AONB Review Group.

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

23 Mar 2016 : Column 1629

“(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.

23 Mar 2016 : Column 1630

(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.

23 Mar 2016 : Column 1631

(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.

23 Mar 2016 : Column 1632

(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,

23 Mar 2016 : Column 1633

(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,

23 Mar 2016 : Column 1634

(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.