High Speed Rail (West Midlands-Crewe) Bill

Debate between Baroness Randerson and Lord Framlingham

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

[Lord Framlingham (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I support Amendments 6 and 8. Amendment 6 deals with the question of peer review, which is absolutely essential. In my remarks to the Committee last Tuesday, I explained that one of the great shortcomings of the HS2 project from the very beginning has been the complete unwillingness of the responsible Ministers to listen to the best and soundest advice coming from outside their department. Amendment 6 would allow these qualified railway experts to examine all aspects of the project in an unbiased way and give the Government the benefit of their advice. It must, of course, be totally independent of Government, HS2 and any company or individual linked to HS2.

We are all aware of the stories of massive financial and time overruns with aircraft carriers, and nuclear power station building disasters. With HS2, “you ain’t seen nothing yet.” I remind the Committee that we are talking about £106 billion to date—probably £150 billion —and the sum is confidently forecast by reliable sources to reach £200 billion. Surely it makes sense for us to take steps to put in place the strongest possible oversight; peer review will do just that.

Amendment 8, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, recommends the publishing of a cost-benefit analysis of this project. I totally agree with that, although I fear that we are locking the stable door after the horse has bolted. This fundamental exercise should be undertaken, of course—in private business it invariably is—before any decision to go ahead is made. Perhaps it was; perhaps the Minister will tell us, and perhaps we can see it. It is quite simple to do: you make a list of all the costs and a list of all the benefits. You put one on one side of the scales and the other on the other, and I have done just that.

I chose benefits first and it is quite a short list: high speed, capacity and jobs. I turn first to high speed. For all sorts of reasons, the promoters of the scheme no longer cite this as an important aspect of it, so this cannot go on the benefit side, even though high speed is what it says on the tin and that is how the idea was originally sold to the Government. For a whole variety of reasons, it is no longer top priority. I do not know all the reasons: I understand that certain aspects of the line—embankments, tunnels, et cetera—would not cope with the proposed speed; and energy costs were also an issue. Therefore, it is no longer a high-speed train in the accepted sense, and we cannot put that on the benefit side of the scales.

Lastly, we come to jobs. Jobs are the proponents’ fallback position, guaranteed to sway faltering Ministers. Obviously, any extra jobs are not just welcome but, in these difficult times, invaluable, although it must be remembered that this was sold as part of the deal long before Covid arrived. It is my view that however much we need jobs, they should not be used as a reason to proceed with a project that is manifestly nonsensical.

If you spent this amount of money on regional railways, improving links from Liverpool to Hull or relieving commuter services in the north and in and out of London, you would produce just as many jobs, spread throughout the country—and, at the end, unlike HS2, you would have something really worth while to show for it. So the jobs argument does not work and that leaves precious little to go on the benefit side of the scales.

Let us look at the costs to the taxpayer: a minimum £106 billion and almost certainly considerably more—all those vital projects which are having to take second place to HS2, we could probably rebuild every hospital in the country for this kind of money; massive, irreparable damage to our environment through a huge swathe of the country; damage to the thousands of people whose lives, homes and businesses have been affected; and massive distrust in the Government’s ability to build anything. I mark it: benefits, precious little; costs, enormous. How did we get into this mess? I truly believe that this will prove to be the most monumental infrastructural and environmental blunder of all time.

[Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I fundamentally disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Framlingham, on the issues he has raised in relation to HS2. He dismisses the speed issue, whereas every piece of research reveals that journey times are key to people deciding whether or not to use rail; so journey times need improving.

On capacity, it is the case that existing lines are full. Capacity is about not just how many people are on a train but how many trains per hour there are on the railway, and we badly need extra capacity in order to move the short-distance travellers off the long-distance lines and to allow freight to use the existing long-distance lines to provide enough capacity for all the freight that needs to go on the railways nowadays in order to save our planet. At the moment very low percentages of people in the Midlands and the north choose to travel by train. That is because of the capacity issue—because of problems with the service. We owe it to them to improve the options for them and to make it possible for them to travel in an environmentally friendly manner.

HS2 has often been its own worst enemy. On our Benches there is firm support for the project, as I have made clear today and in many previous debates. But that does not mean that we are not critical of the way the project has been managed so far. The Oakervee report was designed to review the project and point the way forward but that way needs to be a lot less scrappy than the process so far.

I have a general observation to make about this group of amendments, particularly Amendment 6 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. It is long past time for our approach to major infrastructure developments to be fundamentally rethought. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Liddle: for decades we have proved incapable of making clear strategic decisions, costing them realistically and managing them effectively. The National Infrastructure Commission was supposed to give us the longer view required, which short-term government horizons inevitably fail to provide. However, we still do not have a system that works in a modern democratic economy.

High Speed Rail (West Midlands-Crewe) Bill

Debate between Baroness Randerson and Lord Framlingham

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 9th November 2020 Grand Committee

[Lord Framlingham (Con) [V]]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for her kind remarks. Sadly, I am reluctant to concede that this mad project can go ahead because I know it will not work; it will not do what it was supposed to be designed to do, and it has within it the seeds of its own destruction. At the end of the day, we will have achieved precious little and caused much harm.

I am happy to support Amendment 5, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. When damaging someone’s life and livelihood, the state, in considering compensation, should certainly not be unfair. In my view, it should not even be just fair. I believe that, within sensible limits, it should be generous. I am not a specialist in this field, so I am speaking about a non-specialist subject, but it goes to the heart of the matter. As HS2 has unfolded, the way that some people—whose homes, land and businesses have been taken away from them—have been haggled with has been as worrying as it has been heart-breaking. We are doing enough harm to the countryside, the environment and the economy already. We should not do any more harm to people who, through no fault of their own, are being caught up in this farce.

[Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]]

My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, with his great expertise, has made a detailed case for these amendments, so I will speak briefly. I want particularly to talk about Amendment 10 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, to which I have added my name.

Some elements of the compensation schemes devised for HS2 are relatively generous and go well beyond the statutory minimum, but the noble Earl has set out a series of concerns about how those schemes are applied. Even if everything happens perfectly, it is right to say that it is an emotional and difficult time for many people affected by a project such as this. I want to address in particular my concerns about tenants. Some categories of tenancy are adequately covered, but the committee’s report has drawn our attention to the apparent lack of progress in dealing with an issue that was originally raised in the Select Committee of the House of Commons. Tenants with shorthold assured periodic tenancies, some agricultural tenancies and tenancies for narrowboats all appear to have no rights to compensation—not even to a home loss payment. Once again, those in society who are the least well off and the least likely to have adequate resources are given the least consideration. I call on the Minister to provide a better answer than the one that the Secretary of State was able to give in the other place, and to provide us with information and reassurance that all tenants will be properly compensated and dealt with.

The report also draws our attention to two special cases where it is envisaged that homeowners could lose out badly. I would be grateful if the Minister addressed those and said whether, in future, such people will be covered.