High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill - High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill Select Committee Contents


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


 
previous page contents next page


© Parliamentary copyright 2015
Prepared 26 March 2015