3 Our approach to the issues before
us
Decision process
29. The House's Instruction to us on the principle
of the Bill meant that, unless there were an exceptional reason
to seek a different Instruction, we would not consider changes
to the rail route outside the currently proposed broad route alignment.
We recognise in any event that in the design process for High
Speed 2, successive Secretaries of State have already made substantial
adjustments to mitigate the effects of the railway, such as the
longer Northolt tunnel, a new tunnel at Bromford near Birmingham
to avoid local manufacturing sites, and a 60m north-eastward shift
of the Colne Valley viaduct. Additional provisions with further
mitigation are also in preparation.
30. In considering petitions, we have had to balance
individual, local and business interests with the national interest
and the interests of taxpayers. The decisions and suggestions
we set out hereafter were made on that basis. In certain cases
(of the order of 10%) we decided that a specific, early decision
would be desirable—for instance, to allow plans to be worked
up earlier or to avoid uncertainty—including about any necessary
additional provisions. Chapter 4 sets out these recommendations.
Some have already been articulated by statements from the Chair,
while others are new. Appendix 2 contains the dates of all decision
statements by the Chair, with a link to where those statements
can be found. Chapter 5 sets out some outstanding matters. Chapter
6 deals with our provisional views on compensation. It will be
for our successor committee to make final determinations on a
number of issues with the assistance of our reflections here.
31. One of the benefits of hearing petitions is that
the Promoter and HS2 Limited will take into account a number of
points made in the public forum of the Committee notwithstanding
that we did not insist or have not yet insisted on particular
action. The Promoter has published a register of assurances and
undertakings which partly reflects this.[9]
In relation to some 40-45% of the petitions we heard we were content
with the Promoter's existing assurances or with the position as
planned under the hybrid bill. Further decisions will be made
by our successor committee.
Settlement negotiations
32. HS2 Limited seeks negotiated settlements with
petitioners and other parties as and when proper and possible.
It is right that they do so, as agreements are more likely to
achieve practical and appropriately detailed solutions than decisions
imposed by a panel such as ourselves. For that reason, we have
encouraged many petitioners who have appeared at hearings and
who seemed close to possible settlement to continue their discussions
with HS2 Limited. We directed that such petitioners write to the
Committee via the Clerk if they felt that any sticking point in
negotiation merited the Committee's further intervention. We would
then consider the matter and communicate our views to the petitioners
and/or HS2 Limited through the Clerk. In this way, we have sought
to avoid having unnecessarily lengthy initial petition hearings,
and we have not sought second or subsequent hearings. We were
open to the possibility of petitioners returning briefly to the
Committee if we judged it essential.
33. The Clerk has kept us informed of the progress
of all such discussions. We have on occasion instructed the Clerk
to communicate unilaterally with either the petitioner or HS2
Limited to indicate that one or other party could shift its negotiating
position and thereby accommodate the Committee's views.
34. This approach appears to have functioned well.
We do not seek to bind any future committee but we do recommend
it to our successors.
Need for timely approaches from
HS2
35. For settlement discussions to work most effectively,
they require time and as much information as possible. We have
heard many complaints by petitioners about late approaches from
HS2 Limited: late petition response documents, late settlement
approaches and late offers of meetings.
36. We acknowledge that last-minute settlements
offers and settlement discussions at the door of the committee
room are probably to some extent inevitable. We encourage HS2
Limited to be more timely in its engagement with petitioners,
particularly as there is scope to get ahead with preparation of
petition response documents during the election period, and with
negotiations thereafter.
9 HS2 Limited, Register of Undertakings and Assurances,
March 2015 Back
| 
