United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Debate between Baroness Randerson and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Report stage & Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 23rd November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I speak in support of the amendments. The internal market must be based on high environmental standards, as well as supporting progressive improvement, but there is nothing in the Bill to ensure that this happens—hence the amendment. There is no reference to common frameworks to support higher standards, and there is no non-regressive provision to prevent standards falling. Taken together, this could easily lead to a deregulatory race to the bottom, and have a chilling effect on attempts to improve environmental standards.

It is important to remember that improving environmental standards can be controversial in practice, even though there may be no debate about the science behind them. For example, in the early days of the pandemic, the Government very commendably made money available and encouraged councils to put in place new cycle lanes and pedestrianised areas—a policy which we would all agree is good for our health and for the climate. However, many councils found this very difficult to do in practice, and some backed down in the face of fierce opposition from motorists. Wandsworth council, for example, was one of those concerned.

So in this Bill, while devolved Administrations will not be legally prohibited from introducing new environmental standards, under the market access principles, incoming goods from the rest of the UK will not have to meet these new and higher standards—hence fundamentally undermining attempts at improvement. This is in contrast with EU law, which has created coherent shared mechanisms. The EU also allows countries to go beyond commonly agreed standards to protect the environment, such as by banning particular types of packaging. However, there is no possibility of derogation from mutually recognised requirements in the Bill, as envisaged by the Government.

Amendment 23 refers specifically to environmental standards, but the principle also applies to public health and to standards across the board. That undermines efforts at innovation, a key factor in all successful markets. In Committee, the Minister confirmed that exclusions are

“intentionally narrowly drafted, to ensure that there are no unnecessary trade barriers.”—[Official Report, 28/10/20; col. 339.]

Can the Minister explain how the Government have come to the conclusion that setting higher environmental standards or higher standards of public health creates a barrier to trade?

In the other place, the Government created an exclusion for pesticides, which was not initially in the Bill. Can the Minister explain why this is important, but not other environmental factors? Just as over the decades we have become increasingly aware of the dangers of pesticides, so we have been on a similar journey of discovery over plastics. Well over a decade ago, the Welsh Assembly voted to introduce a charge for single-use plastic bags. The reason was that there was concern that they did not break down in the environment, that they lasted for hundreds of years and that animals died after getting tangled up in them. After some protest, England followed, because it saw the success in Wales of that policy. A decade on, we know so much more about plastic and the microscopic particles that we all ingest, either directly from plastic bottles, or indirectly, for example from fish which have themselves ingested particles.

My point is that yesterday’s experiment becomes today’s norm. Wales wants to ban nine different types of single-use plastic next year, and England—via the UK Government, of course, but the Government for England in this case—seems to be thinking of banning only three. If the Bill is passed without amendment, the efforts in Wales to lead in this field will in practice be totally undermined.

I will finish with another example. Next year the UK Government want to ban the sale of house coal in England. This Bill would mean coal from Wales could still be sold in England and would thus undermine standards that the Government wish to set for England. It is important to remember that what applies to one nation applies to another. I support the amendment.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate for a number of reasons, which I shall come back to as I conclude. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, as she often does, focused on the key issue in play here: where we best situate the balance in an internal market that is as integrated as we currently have, which needs and respects clearly harmonised rules but also allows for joint processes which allow individual parts of the market to develop at different rates in different places. I think we agree that that is the key issue but differ on where the balance must lie and whether it has to be uniform as much as the Bill seems to suggest it will be.

The main interest in this debate has been in focusing our minds on areas that we have not really touched on in recent groups. We have looked at goods and services and at qualifications and how they might be harmonised, and we are coming back to services and qualifications later in our debates this evening. The points made by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, about whether current policy might be adapted because of the impact of this Bill when it becomes an Act need an answer, and I would be grateful if the Minister could respond in particular to that point. Is there a particular hook in this Bill that will cause difficulties across the devolved authorities?

Secondly, on the point made by my noble friend Lord Hain, could it have an adverse effect on current processes so that, for instance, we would lose the local benefit policies to which he referred? Thirdly, on the point raised by my noble friend Lord Liddle, if there are good and valuable initiatives on local growth and support for sectors that are perhaps subsets of the national economy that are appropriate and best organised and run from a local point of view, how will they be affected by the way in which the Bill imposes a straitjacket on the various initiatives that we want to see come forward? I look forward to hearing from the Minister.

Thomas Cook

Debate between Baroness Randerson and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Tuesday 5th November 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

I am very grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement made in the other place. The collapse of Thomas Cook is turning into an issue that needs to be carefully reflected on. It is a tragedy that it happened at all, but the more information that becomes available about the actions of the directors, and the action that they should have taken but perhaps did not, the more we are concerned about it.

There were 8,000 job losses. At the time it was widely reported that Ministers and BEIS officials had little or no discussion with the company before it entered liquidation. However, in the six days leading up to its collapse, government Ministers from Germany, Spain, Bulgaria, Turkey and Greece all made personal contact with the company with the aim of trying to rescue it. Reports from Unite the Union and Syndex have shown that £188 million would have been sufficient to prevent the collapse of the company. Yet we have heard that the Government have spent over £600 million —a lot more than £188 million—on compensation and the successful repatriation of the 150,000 stranded holidaymakers.

We have not had the benefit of a report from the BEIS Committee in the other place; it has not been able to complete its inquiry because of the Dissolution. However, I hope there will be more detailed investigations when we get back, and that we will get an idea of the proposals that might be necessary. Some issues include: audit quality problems, revealed by the fact that the auditors were not able to get to the bottom of this before the liquidation; the struggles that the auditors seem to have faced over how to value some of the financial instruments in the contracts; the fact that the same auditors had been around for far too long; and teams not using their own judgment but tending to accept what they were told by management, possibly because they were so conflicted by their having additional consultancy work. These findings have not been reported by Parliament but by the Financial Reporting Council, as I am sure the Minister is aware.

We have a bit of a mess here. Having said that, it is wonderful to hear that the Government have decided that the outstanding matter referred to in the Statement—the impact on customers who have suffered life-changing injuries or loss of income while on Thomas Cook holidays—cannot be allowed to pass. We will support that decision in any way possible if it is necessary to do so after the election.

The Minister mentioned in the Statement the success of the repatriation; we should perhaps record that too. He paid tribute to the Secretary of State, but the main burden of heavy lifting fell to the Civil Aviation Authority, which booked the planes and arranged the logistics so successfully that customers who could have been stranded for weeks, if not longer, got back within a few days of their original bookings. We should be very proud of that; the success of Deirdre Hutton and her team should be recognised.

On the substance of today’s announcement, it seems extraordinary that this should have been allowed to happen at all. The first question we need to ask is: how could it be that a company of such status and standing as Thomas Cook, which was in operation for nearly 200 years, let itself get into a situation where it deliberately insured itself against the tragedy and therefore abandoned its rationale for existing—the good care of its customers —as it went into liquidation? It is unlikely that any payments will be made to those who will be treated as unsecured creditors. We all know that. Compensation is going missing; the Government have recognised that this needs to be sorted out, and we are very grateful for that.

Can the Minister give us some idea of how this kind of situation will be prevented in future? Clearly, this was something that lay within the remit of the company’s own decisions. The fact that it had insurance cover for the very high end of the spectrum suggests that it was aware of the insurance requirement, but that cut-off is too high. Does the Minister have any ideas about how this might be addressed? I presume he is thinking about future legislation.

The statutory compensation scheme is a great idea and I am pleased that it is happening, but questions arise about how it will be financed and organised. Will it be based on ATOL and ABTA-type approaches or funded directly by the Government, or will some form of co-funding be laid against the other travel companies? If so, does the Minister have any ideas about this?

On the question of whether the official receiver would be passing on matters relating to the actions of the directors, that is clearly not a matter that we can deal with in this House. However, can the Minister say whether he has in mind that a criminal offence may have taken place? If so, it would be useful to know that this is the way the wind is blowing. If not—or if it is not possible to say—can he confirm that the legislation he is considering will ensure that companies trading on a near or actual insolvency basis will not be empowered to pay bonuses to themselves? We should be quite clear that that is what we are talking about at this stage.

I have one final question. Clearly the Government do not intend to become the lender of last resort for companies that get into trouble over travel arrangements, but this will possibly not be the only example of such things happening. Can the Minister offer some reassuring words about being prepared to look again at the wider context, should this turn out to be a more common issue? That would be helpful. Also, will this be a permanent arrangement, or just temporary until things become clearer?

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. It raises some very serious issues. I echo the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and his inquiries about how Thomas Cook came to be in this very risky situation—risky for its customers. Is it because the law simply has no coverage of this area for companies? In other words, do we need to start absolutely from scratch in terms of legal requirements for companies? Or is it that Thomas Cook actually cut corners and could potentially be judged to be on the wrong side of the law in due course?

It is absolutely appalling that people who have suffered very serious injury, and indeed died, as a result of incidents when they were customers of Thomas Cook could find themselves in this very difficult position. We all know that when a company goes into liquidation, it takes years to sort it out, even in the best of circumstances. As it stands, who has priority as creditors for Thomas Cook? In addition to that, what are the Government’s plans for plugging the gap that clearly exists in this situation after the election? The Government are looking to add a capped fund. Of course, that means there will be people who remain badly out of pocket. They will not be compensated as they should be when things have gone wrong. The official receiver is conducting an inquiry into the situation for Thomas Cook. Can the Minister explain how long it is likely to take for the inquiry to report?

I want to raise one or two other issues of concern, following the demise of Thomas Cook. They are not of the order of magnitude of what was in the Minister’s Statement, but they are still serious. The CAA has done some amazing work to repatriate so many people. I know that CAA staff were literally sleeping in the office, because they were being called on to work such long hours. This is the second time in as many years that they have had to do this job and they are clearly getting quite practised at it. It is not acceptable that staff are being put under such huge amounts of stress. Are the Government considering additional resources for the CAA so that staff are not put under quite so much pressure when this happens again, as it almost certainly will?

There are still almost 2,000 Thomas Cook customers who paid by direct debit and have yet to receive their refunds. The original promised date for refunds was 14 October. These customers are a small percentage of the total, but this is a bad time of year for people to be owed money—significant amounts of money. I would like an explanation from the Minister as to whether the Government or any agency are able to provide support to those who are now having to fill in forms. There might well be vulnerable people who find this process extremely complex and our experience is always that the most vulnerable people find it most difficult to complete bureaucratic processes such as this.

Finally, the Government promised a review of insolvency legislation following the Monarch financial crash, the purpose of which was to enable companies to continue to trade long enough to bring customers home so that that responsibility did not fall on the Government again. It has happened again, and I would like to follow up with the Minister whether that work is still ongoing and whether the Government intend to introduce a change to insolvency rules to clarify that situation.

Bombardier

Debate between Baroness Randerson and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Thursday 22nd November 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, for repeating the Statement.

Bombardier’s presence in Northern Ireland is vital to the economy there, representing as it does 8% of Northern Ireland’s GDP and about 40% of the Province’s manufacturing output. The company employs 4,000 people across Northern Ireland as a whole, so this announcement will be a devastating blow, and not only to the families who will be directly affected in the run-up to Christmas—an estimated 20,000 jobs throughout the UK are part of the company’s supply chains. Many such employees and their families may also be affected by the company’s decision.

I am sure noble Lords will recall that last year the company was under attack from President Trump, who attempted to impose tariffs of nearly 300% on Bombardier when the company was accused by Boeing of dumping its C Series jets in the US market. Will the Government join me in paying tribute to the way in which Bombardier’s unions, primarily Unite and GMB, worked closely with Michael Ryan and Bombardier’s management team at that time to fight those absurd dumping allegations?

I am sure your Lordships’ House will be disappointed that the same spirit of co-operation appears not to have been the case today; we understand from Unite that the unions were not made aware of the extent and scale of the job losses that management are now contemplating. Will the Secretary of State meet the unions to discuss how to work together on these issues?

The 490 proposed job losses are just the latest in a long line of redundancies by Bombardier: there have been over 1,700 since May 2015. The company has said that these job cuts are part of a global drive to cut costs, but it is true that a disproportionate number of the 5,000 Bombardier jobs to be cut globally will be cut in Northern Ireland. It is over 10% of the workforce there.

I agree with the Government that it is in all our interests that Bombardier’s Belfast facility is successful. However, I was struck by the comment in the Statement that when the joint venture between Bombardier and Airbus was announced,

“a number of important commitments”,

were made to the Government,

“including that wing manufacturing will continue in Belfast, that the treatment of UK sites and suppliers will be equal to that of other Bombardier and Airbus suppliers, and that the strategy will be one of building on existing strengths and commitments, not on plant closures, taking opportunities to increase sales of the C Series across the globe”.

What has gone wrong here, precisely? Were the Government led up the garden path? Were these binding commitments, and can the company be held to them? According to the Statement, the Government clearly believe that these commitments still “hold true”—whatever that means. It is certainly not a very legal term. What precisely will the Government do about it?

I have a number of further questions for the noble Baroness. What recent discussions have the Government had with Bombardier regarding its global restructuring plan? For instance, it has been reported that as a result of Bombardier’s redundancies in Northern Ireland, production jobs could be created in Mexico and Morocco. What assessment have the Government made of these reports, and will they make strong representations to Bombardier on that issue?

It is estimated that there are a further 60 aerospace-related firms in Northern Ireland. What assessment have the Government made of the resulting impact on these businesses of the decision to make redundancies? What discussions has the Secretary of State had in Northern Ireland about securing alternative inward investment into Northern Ireland? Are there any government contracts in the offing, for instance?

When steel sites were being closed a few years ago, steel task forces were set up with government aid. What provision will be put in place for advice and support to Bombardier employees and families affected by this round of redundancies? Will any additional government funds be provided outside the current block grant and the special DUP-designated funding—if that is being retained—to help reskill any workers who will lose out?

Bombardier represents 8% of Northern Ireland’s overall GDP and the aerospace industry contributes £1.3 billion to the Northern Ireland economy. It is a significant slice of activity there. What steps are the Government taking to ensure these vital industries are protected in the long term?

Presumably, the Government will review its investment of over £20 million in research and development activity at the Belfast plant, which, according to the noble Baroness, was there to develop new products and improve efficiency. Can she say how much of that is in doubt now, and what steps will be taken to make sure that value of money is secured?

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I start by thanking the Minister for repeating the Statement. This is a very significant development, because Bombardier is one the biggest employers in Northern Ireland. This is very sad news for the whole of Northern Ireland.

Earlier this month, Bombardier announced that it would have to cut 5,000 jobs across its global operations. Of that, 3,000 would be in Canada. It seems to me that, for a very small country, the number of jobs being cut in Northern Ireland will have a disproportionate effect. It also seems that the loss of 500 jobs, which is a considerable number, does not reflect the assurances the Government said they received from Bombardier when they made their investment in research earlier in the year.

It is a particularly bitter blow for east Belfast, where the company is based, and especially for the workers and families who will be directly affected. It is of great importance, because these are well-paid, highly skilled workers in a relatively low-paid economy. At the moment, Northern Ireland is in a particularly uncertain situation; our whole economy is uncertain, but Northern Ireland’s is more uncertain than the rest.

Bombardier’s struggle to bring in orders for its C series jets was almost certainly exacerbated by the threat of punitive US tariffs which hung over the company for several months. What are the Government doing to defend the rules-based international trade system in the Trump era? Can the Minister tell us if they are still hopeful for a trade deal with the US that benefits UK businesses?

The Government could have a vital role to play in helping these workers reskill and retrain in the face of a rapidly changing labour market. What steps are officials in Northern Ireland taking in this regard, and have the Government considered supporting people with, for example, an endowment, or an individual learning account which they can use at any stage in life to access further education or training?

The Statement says that the Government have no role in Bombardier’s decisions, as it is a private company. But that overlooks entirely the leverage given to them by the £20 million that they invested in the company this year for research, and to help it improve efficiency. Can the Minister explain what efficiencies they anticipated as a result of this investment? From time to time, the word “efficiency” actually means cutting jobs. Was there a clear agreement about job security when that money was invested?

There is, of course, a big supply chain in Northern Ireland which is also affected. Can the Minister give us an estimate of the value of that supply chain, and the number of jobs involved? Will the Government undertake to have meetings with any of those in the supply chain whose companies and jobs will be affected? Finally, the Statement refers to the joint venture with Airbus. Can the Minister assure us that Airbus is still in a good position, despite these job cuts, with its partner?

Space Policy

Debate between Baroness Randerson and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Wednesday 18th July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement made earlier in another place. We welcome this investment in the UK space sector. Having said that, the ink is scarcely dry on the Space Industry Act, a skeleton Act focusing, quite rightly, on important insurance concerns and on making sure that this fledgeling sector is not stifled at birth by planning issues, complaints about noise or nuisance or environmental concerns. If it is to thrive, the industry we all want to see will require a strong regulatory framework, so when will the secondary legislation that the Minister referred to be brought forward for consideration by this House?

The global space economy market is currently valued at around £160 billion and it is estimated that it will grow to nearly £400 billion by 2030. Most of the expertise and activity is based in the USA, so setting up in direct competition is certainly a bold step. We have heard today that the UK industry is worth £13.7 billion and employs 38,000 people which are big numbers. The target set out in the Statement is 10% of the global market, or £40 billion, which is a big jump. We need a bit more detail about how the Government intend that to happen. The Minister might be aware that the Government’s industrial strategy promised £1 billion of investment in space technology over four years. This announcement is significantly less than that. When do the Government expect to announce the release of further funds for developing spaceflight capabilities? Since there has been some mention of it in the Statement, when will the Government publish a sector deal for space which might also give us some of the detail of how the money is to be created and spent?

Finally, the proposed vertical spaceport site in Sutherland will be the northernmost operational spaceport in the world. As a Scot, I am all for the message this sends to the UK and to Scotland—and indeed for the support it implies for the union. As I am sure the Minister will acknowledge, however, spaceports are overwhelmingly sited near the equator. This is not just for the weather; it is where the earth’s rotational speed is highest, allowing rockets to harness an additional natural boost. There is a point about polar orbits which I recognise, but this is an outlier decision. Can the Minister confirm that the funding announced today takes into account the potential extra costs associated with this location? Can he also set out the countervailing arguments that were used in choosing this location? Linked to this, what steps are the Government taking to ensure a fair regional distribution of space sector supply chains and the associated impact this will have on good jobs in the sector across the whole of the United Kingdom?

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, these announcements are good news for Sutherland and Cornwall—if we have in future a space industry to use them. I am a member of the EU Sub-Committee on the Internal Market. We recently visited Harwell, which is mentioned in this Statement. The scientists working in the industry there are very concerned, rather than very excited, because they are already being squeezed out of aspects of the Galileo programme. They reported that companies and highly skilled individuals in the industry are already moving abroad and companies are planning to move abroad in the future.

There is something very Alice in Wonderland about this Statement, in that it avoids mentioning the Galileo programme. Also, of course, it avoids mentioning Horizon. There is also something rather Alice in Wonderland about the naive enthusiasm for President Trump’s promises for trade, because they have already proved a rather uncertain basis on which to predict the future. My first question to the Minister is: have the Government now received assurances from the EU that we will be able to continue in Galileo? By that—this is a key point—I mean: will we be able to be awarded contracts under the Galileo programme as well as to undertake research as part of the scheme? The scheme involves paying in and getting out as part of the research programme. As I understand it, the problem that has been raised in relation to Galileo would have an impact on our right to receive commercial contracts.

Secondly, the amounts of money in the Statement are welcome—of course they are—but this is a very expensive industry. As the noble Lord has just said, the Government have promised relatively small amounts of money here in comparison with the overall figures previously mentioned in terms of investment in the industry. So I should like to press the Minister for more detail about planned future government investment in the industry. How does that £2 billion pan out over the next few years?

Lastly, I live in Wales, and I should have liked to see Wales included in this. North Wales offered a potential site for a spaceport. That was supported by the Welsh Government and could have been a very useful partnership. Once again, the people of Wales are in a position where we have put forward a plan for large-scale investment but it has been rejected. First, it was electrification across south Wales, then it was the tidal lagoon in Swansea and now it is the spaceport. A pattern is developing here, and it is a very depressing one if you come from Wales. Why was Wales not awarded this? Was it considered as a serious contender and, if not, why was that information not given out earlier so that expectations in Wales were not raised?

High Speed Rail (London–West Midlands) Bill

Debate between Baroness Randerson and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 12th January 2017 Grand Committee

[Baroness Randerson]

My Lords, we need something to deal with this issue, whatever form that “something” takes, and we need it to be independent and to have a responsibility to provide reports and analysis of the issues and problems as they occur.

The committee’s report is very critical of the record of HS2 so far. The committee said:

“The promoter has attracted a good deal of criticism from some petitioners for lack of engagement”.

HS2 Ltd has now made a commitment to put in place a strategy for community engagement, including for vulnerable residents, and has employed someone to deal with community engagement and complaints. However, it has a lot of ground to make up in terms of public trust. Indeed, the final amendment that the Minister put forward in our previous debate, which was a last-minute change of approach in terms of traffic regulation, does not inspire one with confidence that the Government are looking ahead at what they need, or if they are looking ahead, that they have raised the issue in time for full consultation on it. I am not sure which of those two scenarios is the more disturbing. As I say, HS2 has ground to make up. Throughout the project residents have a right to expect a good, simple, straightforward and independent process when concerns arise and they have complaints. I believe that a similar process was followed in relation to Crossrail. However it is done, we need intelligent mediation on this.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I apologise for not being present at Tuesday’s Committee debate due to private reasons. I have subsequently read the report of the proceedings and very much appreciate the contributions made by my noble friends Lady Mallalieu, Lady Young and Lord Rosser. I particularly appreciate the Minister’s contribution as he covered some of the points I would have made had I been present, and did so very well. Of course, now that he has declared that he is a would-be train driver, I am sure that he will be disqualified from any future activities with regard to transport, but while we have him, we should cherish him.

I declare my interest as a resident of Little Missenden in the Chilterns AONB. I have also been involved in some of the campaigns associated with Little Missenden. My private interests were dealt with during a sitting of the Select Committee in your Lordships’ House. However, I think that, to the extent to which they were able to help, those matters are extinguished. Therefore, I am not dealing here with private interests but with the fallout from the issues that occur to me as a Member of your Lordships’ House in relation to some of the processes that I have been able to observe from a variety of positions.

I am speaking to Amendment 30, dealing with a complaints commissioner; to Amendment 31, in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Pidding; and to the associated amendments relating to those. Amendments 30 and 31 relate to issues that stem from some of the processes that have been established to try to progress the Bill through a hybrid arrangement. The noble Baroness, Lady Pidding, made a very good speech in which she tried to identify where the gaps occur from a local perspective. I should have mentioned in my opening remarks that I thank her for speaking on Tuesday on another amendment. Noble Lords may not be aware that she rushed here, almost straight from the airport, and had not even unpacked before she arrived, and yet she was still able to give a very substantial speech, and I thank her for that.

The process we have been through reveals the need for either a complaints commissioner or an adjudicator. I absolutely agree with the points made by my noble friend Lord Berkeley and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, on these issues. During the Select Committee phase, the focus is on the personal interests of those who are directly affected by the Bill. The problem is that, even if you are trying to argue a more general public interest case, what you can do is narrowed down by the fact that the opening position and arrangements against which those presentations are made relate to your residence and propinquity to the line.

I am conscious that there are members of the Select Committee here today, and I do not in any sense want to do anything to suggest that I do not hold them in the highest regard or do not think that the report was an excellent summary of the work that they did. However, I found it a very difficult experience, and I am not an inexperienced public speaker. If I found it difficult, it is fair to say that other petitioners will have found it the same. It is a very adversarial process, focusing on private interests, and therefore mitigation, rather than on the broader issues that exist. There is no equality of arms because the process is done in a court-like setting with very highly trained, and presumably quite expensive, advocates against you.

The particularity of the situation in the Lords was that the committee, for reasons that I understand, had decided that it would not hear cases that involved alternative provisions. That meant that most of those who wished to speak, certainly those from the Chilterns, felt that they could not raise all the issues they wanted to. I could go on—I could mention that the lack of action groups and the reliance on parish councils was reflected, but I do not wish to get into that area. I just want that to be noted as the background. Looking back at the process, it seems to me that important issues have fallen by the side. It is not clear to me how those can be picked up, except through this process. This process is dealing with the public aspects of the Bill, but it engages with issues that could be regarded as private, even though they are germane.

I appreciate that this is quite a difficult point to get across and I have no doubt that I will be attacked for it. However, there is a gap around the need to regard what local expertise and understanding can bring to the broader picture. That is not the same as private interests. The issues faced by those trying to petition the Select Committee were no different from the issues faced by those arguing more generally against the Bill.

The Bill will go through—there is no question but that the Government will get their Bill. Therefore, it is now a question of how best to improve it for the future for all people. However, in the absence of the ability to get direct cost information about what is involved, we were constantly frustrated. How could it be that decisions were being reached that balanced the direct costs of building part of the railway and the adverse costs that would occur if the environment were destroyed? This obviously applies to the Chilterns, but there are other areas in which this is also a responsibility. We could not get that cost information: we lacked the ability to do so through the private sector and we have not been able to do it in any public way. That is a problem. I am not saying that were the information to be made available it would change anything, but we cannot get it and the decision is not transparent. There is no information available in the public sector about the trade-off that needs to be made—as I understand it, through the legislative process—between the responsibilities the Government have to maintain AONBs and the need to have the infrastructure of a railway. I have come to terms with the fact that there will be a railway and it will go through the Chilterns. However, I do not have the information to understand better the mechanics of how a decision was reached that it was too expensive to continue the tunnel past Wendover, for example.

There are some difficulties here. It may be that the review which is to be carried out on how we deal with these issues and how lines are to be built will pick up on the point, although I certainly understand that it is probably too late to look at this particular railway. But I want to put on the record that, from my experience, there are difficulties here.

My real point is one I mentioned earlier. It is about the way in which local experience about the problems and the pinch points cannot be built into the process. Some very good examples were given to the Committee in the sitting on Tuesday. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, in what was a series of powerful and appropriate contributions, talked about the tunnelling at Wendover and the issues that have arisen from knowledge about a cheaper version which simply is not being discussed, along with the issues at Doddershall and Quainton. As the noble Viscount explained, these are all extremely pertinent in the local context, but there are wider issues about whether they are the better solution to the problems being faced by the proprietor in putting forward the railway. Like the noble Viscount, I do not understand how it is that these decisions are taken in the absence of information and in the absence of a process under which better interrogation could take place.

I shall mention two or three other matters although I do not wish to go into any detail and I am not looking to the Minister to make a response to them. However, I have been copied into correspondence from people living near Savay Lake and Savay Farm, which I know the committee heard about at length. As I say, I do not wish to go into the detail, but it seems that there may be a miscarriage here which is of an extent that might require, for instance, an independent adjudicator to take some interest in further down the line. That is why I support the proposal. The question about the haul road in Great Missenden for which there seemed a solution brokered outside the Select Committee in order to ensure that there would be a programme to mitigate the damage to Great Missenden collapsed and there seems to be no way to retrieve it because the system simply does not provide an opportunity to do so.

All these issues—there are others; I could mention the question of more issues closer to Great Missenden at Hyde Heath and further up the line as referred to by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor—show that the detail is not needed to make the general point that there is no body, no person, likely to be able to take account of redress where there is environmental impact as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidding, or impacts on communities which occur after the Act is passed but during the process and before the line is opened. That is because the system does not seem to permit it. It will be, as it were, cast in concrete as soon as the Bill gets through. That seems wrong and therefore I agree absolutely with the idea that there should be some form of complaints commission. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Pidding, made the right point when she said that we need something with teeth, and therefore her proposal for an independent adjudicator may be the right way forward.

Before I close on this perhaps I may mention a point that was raised by my noble friend Lord Rosser on Tuesday. Many of the complaints that arose in the original hearings and in both Select Committees were about compensation. I think we have all had experience of how difficult that can be to apply. There is a proposal which I would commend to the Minister to take on board. I do not think that it could necessarily be available on this project, but it might be appropriate for phase 2. It could be of more general interest and I would ask him to take it away because I am not looking for a response today. It stems from a Private Member’s Bill tabled around 18 months ago in the other place. The idea is a property bond approach through a substantial fund that would be controlled by a mutual on the basis that where a person has a property which is affected by some form of infrastructure arrangement, it would not be necessary for the promoters of the scheme to provide a direct contribution towards the replacement costs should that property be required. There is too much detail for me to go through at this point in the proceedings, but I would like to leave the proposal with the Minister and I am happy to write to him and attend meetings if he feels that it is worth following up.

The difficulty that has bedevilled all the compensation schemes in the Chilterns has been around propensity to the line. Setting an arbitrary figure of so many metres before someone can qualify for one or other of the various arrangements was always going to cause problems, and that is a general observation rather than applying just to this line. If it could be possible to arrange matters, perhaps through some form of mutual obligation on all property owners, so that anyone affected by waterworks activity, electricity, railways and roads is covered for the diminution in the value of their property because of the works, that would lift a huge weight from those who are affected by infrastructure arrangements and, I think, it would help the Government to gain support for their projects. The proposal comes under the general idea of a property bond, but it is really related to the blighting effect of infrastructure projects. I commend it to those who might be interested and I will be happy to follow it up later.