23 Mar 2016 : Column 1635

(2) The nominated undertaker will employ a community engagement team for the special management zone, which shall have responsibility for managing community relations, including the referral, escalation, monitoring and resolution of complaints and the provision of timely information about the status of complaints.

(3) The community engagement team will arrange regular meetings of the nominated undertaker, lead contractors, local authorities and local community representatives to discuss construction issues and forthcoming programmes of work.

(4) The community engagement team shall provide advice on support mechanisms and shall implement the HS2 stakeholder engagement framework.

(5) The community engagement team will be staffed by appropriately experienced personnel and will include—

(a) a single point of contact for local authorities; and

(b) named individual points of contact for property owners affected by construction.

(6) Implementation and enforcement of the Code of Construction Practice within the Special Management Zone will be the responsibility of a senior manager within the community engagement team.

(7) The community engagement team will coordinate responses to the construction of Phase One alongside planning of Phase Two.”

New clause 29—Kingsbury railhead restoration—

“The Secretary of State must require the nominated undertaker, on completion of Phase One construction, to restore the land and environment at and in the vicinity of the Kingsbury railhead to its state as at the date of Royal Assent to this Act, notwithstanding that mitigation measures to be implemented during construction will include earthworks and bunding.”

New clause 31—Mitigation in environs of Old Oak Common—

“(1) Conservation areas in the vicinity of Old Oak Common shall be the subject of special consultation whose objective shall be to mitigate the long-term effects of construction in the area.

(2) The nominated undertaker will use reasonable endeavours to situate heavy goods vehicle entrances to the Old Oak Common construction site as far from residential dwellings in Stephenson Street, Wells House Road and Midland Terrace as is reasonably practicable.”

New clause 34—Mitigation of construction impacts at Canterbury Works vent shaft—

“(1) Commencement of construction work at the Canterbury Works vent shaft construction site shall be subject to there being already in place before construction a traffic management scheme.

(2) The traffic management scheme shall include a requirement that construction on the Canterbury Works site does not entail more than 100 individual heavy duty vehicle trips per day (50 arriving and 50 departing).

(3) It shall be a further requirement of the traffic management plan that trips to be made by heavy duty vehicles will avoid the beginning and end of the school day.

(4) The nominated undertaker will require that all heavy duty vehicles entering or employed within the London low emission zones be powered by Euro VI (or lower emission) engines.

(5) The nominated undertaker will undertake regular environmental assessments of dust levels on the premises of St Mary’s Catholic Primary School, particularly in recreational areas such as the playground.

(6) The nominated undertaker will consider on a monthly basis where further measures at source may be required in order to reduce the effects of pollution, and publish its findings.

(7) The Secretary of State will provide the local authorities in the area of the Canterbury Works with the funds they deem necessary for additional road safety measures to ensure children’s safety during construction.

23 Mar 2016 : Column 1636

(8) During construction, the nominated undertaker and its contractors must maintain a construction operations website and a telephone helpline staffed 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to handle enquiries from the general public and local business regarding construction activities.

(9) A log shall be kept of all complaints relating to HS2 construction sites, whether those complaints are made to HS2, local authorities or the police, and all complaints, with HS2’s response and action taken in response, should be published prominently on HS2’s website.

(10) Where there is a pattern of repeated infringement of construction site conditions, HS2 will pay compensation to all those affected.

(11) Information regarding vent shaft construction effects and progress must be made clear through advertisements, on social media, email alerts, local radio and newspapers.

(12) Information services must be provided in languages appropriate to the needs of the area, using the results of a demographic survey.”

This new clause seeks to make mitigate the effects of construction at the Canterbury Works site, in particular in relation to air quality and child health and safety.

New clause 35—Mitigation of construction impacts at Alexandra Place—

“(1) The nominated undertaker will ensure that any HS2-related construction at the Alexandra Place vent shaft construction site complies with existing air pollution legislation.

(2) The nominated undertaker will explore the possibility of using Loudoun Road for the loading and unloading of heavy duty vehicles and of moving materials by rail on tracks running alongside the proposed vent shaft site and shall implement both possibilities to the full extent possible, with a preference for movement by rail.”

New schedule 1—Adjudicator: Status and Funding—

“1 The Adjudicator shall be a body corporate.

2 (1) Subject to sub-paragraph (3), the Adjudicator shall not be regarded as the servant or agent of the Crown or any enjoying any status immunity or privilege of the Crown.

(2) The members of the Adjudicator and of their staff shall not be regarded as civil servants and the Adjudicator’s property shall not be regarded as property of, or held on behalf of, the Crown.

(3) In relation to any matter as respects which the Adjudicator act by virtue of a direction under Section 1.3 the Adjudicator shall enjoy the same privileges, immunities and exemptions as those enjoyed in relation to that matter by the Secretary of State for Transport.

(4) Subject to the provisions of any enactment, the Adjudicator shall not be exempt from any tax, duty, rate, levy or other charge whatever (whether general or local).

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

Membership

3 (1) The Adjudicator shall consist of not less than 8 and not more than 17 members.

(2) The members shall be appointed by the Secretary of State, who shall appoint one of them to be chairman and may appoint another of them to be deputy chairman.

(3) In appointing any member, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of the members as a whole having knowledge or experience of all the following, namely railway construction and operation, the preservation of cultural heritage, town and country planning, ecology, arboriculture, landscape, and air quality.

(4) In appointing members, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of at least one of them having knowledge of local government (as well as knowledge or

23 Mar 2016 : Column 1637

experience of one or more of the subjects mentioned in sub-paragraph (3)).

(5) Subject to the following provisions of this paragraph, a chairman, deputy chairman or other member shall hold and vacate office in accordance with the terms of his appointment, but no member shall be appointed for a period of more than 5 years.

(6) A chairman, deputy chairman or member may resign his office by notice in writing addressed to the Secretary of State.

(7) If the Secretary of State is satisfied that a member—

(a) has been absent from meetings of the Adjudicator for a period longer than 3 consecutive months without the consent of the Adjudicator, or

(b) has become bankrupt or has made an arrangement with his creditors, or

(c) is incapacitated by physical or mental illness, or

(d) is otherwise unable or unfit to discharge the functions of a member,

the Secretary of State may remove him from his office

(8) If a chairman or deputy chairman ceases to be a member he shall also cease to be chairman or deputy chairman; and if a chairman or deputy chairman ceases to be chairman or deputy chairman he shall also cease to be a member.

(9) A person who ceases to be a member, otherwise than by virtue of sub-paragraph (7), or ceases to be chairman or deputy chairman, shall be eligible for re-appointment.

Staff

4 (1) There shall be a chief officer of the Adjudicator who shall be appointed by the Adjudicator with the approval of the Secretary of State.

(2) The chief officer shall be responsible to the Adjudicator for the general exercise of the Adjudicator’s functions and may, subject to the directions of the Adjudicator, exercise all the powers of the Adjudicator either himself or through nominated staff members.

(3) The Adjudicator may appoint such other employees as the Adjudicator thinks fit.

(4) The Adjudicator shall pay to their employees such remuneration and allowances as the Adjudicator may determine.

(5) The employees shall be appointed on such other terms and conditions as the Adjudicator may determine.

(6) The Adjudicator may pay such pensions, allowances or gratuities as they may determine to or in respect of any of their employees, make such payments as they may determine towards the provision of pensions, allowances or gratuities to or in respect of any of their employees or provide and maintain such schemes as they may determine (whether contributory or not) for the payment of pensions, allowances or gratuities to or in respect of any of their employees.

(7) The references in sub-paragraph (6) to pensions, allowances or gratuities to or in respect of any employees include references to pensions, allowances or gratuities by way of compensation to or in respect of employees who suffer loss of office or employment.

(8) A determination under sub-paragraph (4), (5) or (6) is ineffective unless made with the approval of the Secretary of State given with the Treasury’s consent.

(9) The Adjudicator shall make, not later than such date as the Secretary of State may determine, an offer of employment by the Adjudicator to each person employed in the civil service of the State whose name is notified to the Adjudicator by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this paragraph.

(10) The terms of the offer shall be such that they are, taken as a whole, not less favourable to the person to whom the offer is made than the terms on which he is employed on the date on which the offer is made.

(11) In determining whether the terms of the offer are more or less favourable to that person than those enjoyed by him on the date of the offer no account shall be taken of the fact that

23 Mar 2016 : Column 1638

employment with the Adjudicator is not employment in the service of the Crown.

(12) An offer made in pursuance of this paragraph shall not be revocable during the period of 3 months beginning with the date on which it is made.

(13) Where a person becomes an employee of the Adjudicator in consequence of this paragraph, then, for the purposes of his period of employment in the civil service of the State shall count as a period of employment by the Adjudicator and the change of employment shall not break the continuity of the period of employment.

(14) Any dispute arising under this paragraph as to whether or not the terms of any employment offered by the Adjudicator are, taken as a whole, less favourable than those applying to a person’s employment in the civil service of the State shall be referred to and determined by an employment tribunal.

(15) An employment tribunal shall not consider a complaint whereby a dispute mentioned in sub-paragraph (6) is referred to it unless the complaint is presented to the tribunal before the end of the period of 3 months beginning with the date of the offer of employment or within such further period as the tribunal considers reasonable in a case where it is satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for the complaint to be presented before the end of the period of 3 months.

(16) An appeal shall lie to the Employment Appeal Tribunal on a question of law arising from any decision of, or arising in proceedings before, an employment tribunal under this paragraph; and no appeal shall lie except to the Employment Appeal Tribunal from any decision of an employment tribunal under this paragraph.

Proceedings

5 Subject to the following provisions of this Schedule, the Adjudicator may regulate their own procedure (including quorum).

6 (1) A member of the Adjudicator who is in any way directly or indirectly interested in a contract made or proposed to be made by the Adjudicator or by HS2 Limited or by any Nominated Undertaker appointed by the Secretary of State, or in any other matter which falls to be considered by the Adjudicator, shall disclose the nature of his interest at a meeting of the Adjudicator.

(2) The disclosure shall be recorded in the minutes of the meeting.

(3) A member shall not—

(a) where a contract in which the member is interested is under consideration, take part in the deliberations on or decision about the contract; and

(b) where any other matter in which the member is interested is under consideration, take part in the deliberations on or decision about the matter if the Adjudicator decide that the member’s interest might prejudicially affect his consideration of the matter.

(4) For the purposes of this paragraph, a notice given by a member at a meeting of the Adjudicator to the effect that he is a member of a specified body corporate or firm and is to be regarded as interested in any contract which is made with the body corporate or firm after the date of the notice, and in any other matter concerning the body corporate or firm which falls to be considered after that date, shall be a sufficient disclosure of his interest.

(5) A member need not attend in person at a meeting of the Adjudicator in order to make a disclosure which he is required to make under this paragraph if he takes reasonable steps to secure that the disclosure is made by a notice which is taken into consideration and read at such a meeting.

(6) The validity of any proceedings of the Adjudicator shall not be affected by any vacancy among the members, or by any defect in the appointment of any person as a member or chairman or deputy chairman, or by a failure to comply with paragraph 6.

23 Mar 2016 : Column 1639

Committees

7 (1) The Adjudicator shall constitute at least one committee to advise them on ecology and at least one to advise them on compliance by HS2 Ltd with its obligations under the Environmental Statement and at least one to advise them on the efficacy of such compensation schemes which are implemented by HS2 Ltd and the Department for Transport and may constitute other committees to advise them on those or other aspects of their functions.

(2) The Adjudicator may include as members of committees persons who are not members of the Adjudicator.

(3) The Adjudicator may regulate the proceedings (including quorum) of committees.

(4) The Adjudicator may pay to the members of any committee such reasonable allowances in respect of expenses or loss of remuneration as the Secretary of State may determine with the Treasury’s approval.

Instruments

8 (1) The fixing of the seal of the Adjudicator shall be authenticated by the signature of the chairman of or some other person authorised either generally or specially by the Adjudicator to act for that purpose.

(2) A document purporting to be duly executed under the seal of the Adjudicator, or to be signed on the Adjudicator’s behalf, shall be received in evidence and, unless the contrary is proved, be deemed to be so executed or signed.

Members Remuneration

9 (1) The Adjudicator shall pay to members of the Adjudicator such remuneration and such allowances in respect of expenses as the Secretary of State may determine with the Treasury’s approval.

(2) In the case of any such member or past member of the Adjudicator as the Secretary of State may with the Treasury’s approval determine, the Adjudicator shall pay such pension, allowance or gratuity to or in respect of him, or make such payment towards the provision of such a pension, allowance or gratuity, as the Secretary of State may so determine.

(3) Where a person ceases to be a member of the Adjudicator, and it appears to the Secretary of State that there are special circumstances which make it right for that person to receive compensation, the Secretary of State may, with the Treasury’s approval, direct the Adjudicator to make to that person a payment of such amount as the Secretary of State may determine with the Treasury’s approval.

Accounts

10 (1) The Adjudicator shall keep proper accounts and proper records in relation to them.

(2) The Adjudicator shall prepare a statement of accounts in respect of each financial year.

(3) The statement shall give a true and fair view of the state of the Adjudicator’s affairs at the end of the financial year and of the Adjudicator’s income and expenditure in the financial year.

(4) The statement shall—

(a) be prepared within such period as the Secretary of State may direct; and

(b) comply with any directions given by the Secretary of State with the Treasury’s consent as to the information to be contained in the statement, the manner in which the information is to be presented or the methods and principles according to which the statement is to be prepared.

(5) The accounts in respect of each financial year ending on or before 31st March 2018 (including any statement of accounts in respect of each such financial year prepared under this paragraph) shall be audited by persons appointed in respect of each financial year by the Secretary of State.

(6) No person shall be appointed auditor under this paragraph unless he is—

(a) eligible for appointment as a statutory auditor under Part 42 of the Companies Act 2006; or

23 Mar 2016 : Column 1640

(b) a member of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy; but a firm may be so appointed if each of its members is qualified to be so appointed.

(7) Where the Adjudicator has prepared a statement of accounts in respect of a financial year ending on or after 31st March 2016, it must, as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of the financial year to which the statement relates, send a copy of the statement to the Comptroller and Auditor General.

(8) The Comptroller and Auditor General shall examine, certify and report on any statement of accounts sent to him under sub-paragraph (7).

(9) In this paragraph “financial year” means the period commencing with the day of the Adjudicator’s establishment and ending with the second 31 March following that day, and each successive period of 12 months.

Information

11 (1) The Adjudicator shall make to the Secretary of State, as soon as may be practicable after the end of each financial year, a report on the exercise of their functions since the last report was made or (in the case of the first) since the Adjudicator’s establishment.

(2) Each report shall include a copy of the statement of accounts prepared and audited under paragraph 11 in respect of the financial year and, where the statement has been audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General, a copy of his report on it.

(3) Each report of the Adjudicator shall include a statement of action taken by the Adjudicator concerning—

(a) The compliance by HS2 Ltd with the commitments made in the Phase 1 Environmental Statement,

(b) The adequacy of the mitigation measures undertaken by HS2 Limited and any Nominated Undertaker concerning construction of the line,

(c) Recommendations concerning any additional mitigation measures required to ensure adequate environmental mitigation,

(d) The assessment of reasonable practicability undertaken by the nominated undertaker,

(e) The Secretary of State shall lay a copy of each report of the Adjudicator before each House of Parliament,

(f) As soon as may be after receiving any report made by the auditors on any accounts audited under paragraph 12 or, as the case may be, made by the Comptroller and Auditor General on any statement of accounts prepared under that paragraph, the Adjudicator shall send a copy of the report to the Secretary of State,

(g) The Adjudicator shall furnish the Secretary of State with such information relating to their property and the discharge and proposed discharge of their functions as he may require, and for that purpose they shall permit any person authorised by him to inspect and make copies of any accounts or other documents of the Adjudicator and shall give such explanation of them as that person or the Secretary of State may require and

(h) In this paragraph “financial year” has the same meaning as in paragraph 10.

House of Commons disqualification

12 (1) In Part III of Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 (disqualifying offices), there shall be inserted at the appropriate place in alphabetical order—

(2) “Any member, in receipt of remuneration, of the Adjudicator.””

New schedule 2—Designated areas and classes for vehicles (Specific)—

“Designated area

The A452 road, Balsall Common, between its junction with Windmill Lane and the bridge over the Rugby and Birmingham railway.

23 Mar 2016 : Column 1641

Designated class

A vehicle exceeding 8 tonnes.

Designated area

Waste Lane, Balsall Common, between its junction with the A452 and the eastern junction with Old Waste Lane.

Designated class

A vehicle exceeding 8 tonnes.

Designated area

The Kenilworth Greenway.

Designated class

Any vehicle except a vehicle crossing from one side of the designated area to a point immediately opposite.”

New schedule 3—Designated areas and classes for vehicles (Generic)—

“Any designated areas

The designated area or areas in which a designated class or designated classes of vehicles are to be expressly prohibited shall be defined by the Secretary of State after consultation with local interested parties. They shall be contained in regulations to be made by statutory instrument, which shall not be made unless a draft thereof has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.

Any designated class

A vehicle exceeding 8 tonnes, unless otherwise defined in relation to a particular designated area in regulations to be issued by the Secretary of State as above.”

Amendment 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 4, after “1,” insert

“subject to subsections 1A, 1D, 1G, 1I, 1O and 1T”

This amendment seeks to prevent any surface railway route through The Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and ensure that any railway within the AONB be built in a fully-bored tunnel.

Amendment 2, page 1, line 6, at end insert—

“(1A) The nominated undertaker shall not exercise powers granted under section 1 to construct a surface railway route within the boundaries of The Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (Chilterns AONB).

(1B) Any railway constructed as part of Phase One of High Speed 2 and within the boundaries of the Chilterns AONB shall be built as an extension to the bored tunnel in this area, which is planned through the works specified in Schedule 1 of this Act.

(1C) In this section, the Chilterns AONB shall mean the area of outstanding natural beauty designated within the Chilterns under section 82(1) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.”

This amendment seeks to prevent any surface railway route through The Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and ensure that any railway within the AONB be built in a fully-bored tunnel.

Amendment 3, page 1, line 6, at end insert—

“(1D) The nominated undertaker shall not exercise powers granted under section 1 to build a surface railway route within the boundaries of The Chilterns Area of Natural Beauty (Chilterns AONB).

(1E) To fulfil railway construction requirements for Phase One of High Speed 2 within this area, the nominated undertaker shall pursue an extension of the bored tunnel which is planned through works specified in Schedule 1, via a Transport and Works Act order as provided for in section 52 of this Act, or via such other procedure as shall ensure an opportunity for appropriate public participation and objection.

(1F) In this section, the Chilterns AONB shall mean the area of outstanding natural beauty designated within the Chilterns under section 82(1) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.”

23 Mar 2016 : Column 1642

This amendment seeks to prevent any surface railway route through The Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and require the nominated undertaker to pursue an extension of the existing bored tunnel outside of this legislation.

Amendment 14, page 1, line 6, at end insert—

“(1G) Any railway constructed as part of Phase One of High Speed 2 and within the boundaries of the Chilterns AONB shall, between South Heath and Leather Lane, east of the A413 Aylesbury Road in Buckinghamshire, be built within bored tunnel.

(1H) The works referred to in subsection (1G) shall be pursued by means of a Transport and Works Act order or such other procedure as shall ensure an opportunity for appropriate public participation and objection.

(1I) In this section, the Chilterns AONB shall mean the area of outstanding natural beauty designated within the Chilterns under section 82(1) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.”

This amendment would seek to provide partial further protection of the Chilterns AONB by extending the bored tunnel northward from South Heath for a further mile.

Amendment 5, page 1, line 6, at end insert—

“(1I) The nominated undertaker shall not exercise powers to commence any works specified in this Clause, or any other construction works connected to Phase One of High Speed Rail 2, until a cost benefit analysis of the environmental impacts of such works has been completed.

(1J) The cost benefit analysis must include, but shall not be restricted to, an assessment of the environmental impacts of Phase One of High Speed Rail 2 and connected construction works in The Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

(1K) The cost benefit analysis shall be undertaken by a review panel, the membership of which must include, but shall not be restricted to, representatives from—

(a) Buckinghamshire County Council,

(b) Chiltern District Council,

(c) Aylesbury Vale District Council,

(d) Wycombe District Council,

(e) The Chilterns Conservation Board,

(f) Natural England,

(g) Environment Agency,

(h) Key community groups,

(i) HS2 Ltd, and

(j) The Department for Transport.

The panel shall be funded and facilitated by the nominated undertaker.

(1L) Within twelve weeks after the date on which this Act comes into force the Panel must report its conclusions and recommendations to the Secretary of State.

(1M) If the Secretary of State rejects any recommendation made by the panel he must—

(a) make publicly available the reasons for doing so, and

(b) demonstrate how any environmental cost that would have been addressed by the rejected recommendation will otherwise be mitigated.

(1N) Any deviation from works specified in this Schedule required as a result of the panel’s recommendations shall be pursued via a Transport and Works Act order, as provided for in section 52 of this Act, or via such other procedure as shall ensure an opportunity for appropriate public participation and objection.”

This amendment seeks to make progress of any construction works connected to Phase One of High Speed Rail 2 conditional on the completion of an environmental cost benefit analysis.

Amendment 6, page 1, line 6, at end insert—

“(1O) The nominated undertaker shall not exercise powers to commence any works specified in this Schedule, or any other construction works connected to Phase One of High Speed Rail

23 Mar 2016 : Column 1643

2, until a full reassessment of tunnelling methodology as applied to an extended bored tunnel under The Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, has been completed.

(1P) The reassessment shall be conducted by a panel of experts and other relevant parties, to be appointed, funded and facilitated by the nominated undertaker.

(1Q) Within twelve weeks of this Act coming into force, the panel must report its conclusions and any recommendations to HS2 and the Secretary of State.

(1R) If the Secretary of State rejects any recommendation made by the panel he must—

(a) make publicly available the reasons for doing so, and

(b) provide a cost benefit analysis of any alternative proposal to that recommended by the panel.

(1S) Any deviation from works specified in this Schedule required as a result of the panel’s recommendations shall be pursued through a Transport and Works Act order, as provided for in section 52 of this Act or such other procedure as shall ensure an opportunity for appropriate public participation and objection.”

This amendment would make progress of any works connected to Phase One of High Speed Rail 2 conditional on the completion of a reassessment of tunnelling methodology for an extended bored tunnel under part of The Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

Amendment 7, page 1, line 6, at end insert—

“(1T) The nominated undertaker shall not exercise powers to commence any works specified in this Schedule, or any other construction works connected to Phase One of High Speed Rail 2, until a full assessment of traffic management requirements has been completed.

(1U) The assessment shall be conducted by a panel of experts and other relevant parties, to be appointed, funded and facilitated by HS2 Ltd.

(1V) Within sixteen weeks of this Act coming into force the panel must report its conclusions to the Secretary of State. The report must include but shall not be limited to—

(a) a full assessment of traffic management requirements consequential to any works specified in this Schedule, and

(b) detailed proposals outlining how such requirements shall be addressed.”

This amendment would make progress of any works connected to Phase One of High Speed Rail 2 conditional on the completion of an assessment of traffic management requirements and implementation of solutions to address such requirements.

Amendment 8, page 1, line 6, at end insert—

“(1A) In exercising the powers in this Bill, the nominated undertaker shall have regard to the desirability of minimising the number of gantries to be installed to provide power to the railway, in particular in areas of outstanding natural beauty designated by statute and in other areas of particularly high environmental value and sensitivity, and shall consult with local communities in designing plans for gantry installation.”

Amendment 11, page 1, line 6, at end insert—

“(1A) The nominated undertaker shall not exercise powers granted under section 1 to construct a surface railway route between Burton Green, Warwickshire, and Mercote Hall Lane east of Hampton-in-Arden, Solihull.

(1B) Any railway constructed as part of Phase One of High Speed 2 between Burton Green, Warwickshire, and Mercote Hall Lane east of Hampton-in-Arden, Solihull, shall be built as an extension to the tunnel at Burton Green, which is planned through the works specified in Schedule 1 of this Act.”

Amendment 17, page 1, line 6, at end insert—

“(1A) The nominated undertaker shall not exercise powers to commence any works specified in schedule 1 relating to Canterbury Works in Brent, London until a cost benefit analysis of the environmental impacts of such works has been completed.

23 Mar 2016 : Column 1644

(1B) The cost benefit analysis shall be undertaken by a review panel, the membership of which must include, but shall not be restricted to, representatives from—

(a) HS2 Ltd;

(b) Department for Transport;

(c) Brent Council;

(d) Environment Agency; and

(e) Key community groups

(1C) The panel shall be funded and facilitated by the nominated undertaker.

(1D) Within twenty weeks after the date on which this Act comes into force, the panel must report its conclusions and recommendations to the Secretary of State.

(1E) If the Secretary of State rejects any recommendation made by the panel he must make publicly available the reasons for doing so and must demonstrate how any environmental cost that would have been addressed by the rejected recommendation will otherwise be mitigated.”

This amendment seeks to make construction at the Canterbury Works site subject to an environmental cost benefit analysis.

Amendment 12, in clause 20, page 9, line 6, at end insert—

“(1A) The deemed planning permissions in subsection (1) shall be made subject to the approval of the external appearance of the works by the relevant parish or town council,

(1B) The approval of the external appearance referred to in subsection (1A) shall not be withheld unreasonably, and shall be determined by the relevant parish or town council within four weeks of the submission by the nominated undertaker of full details of the external appearance of the proposed works to the proper officer of the council.”

Amendment 16, in clause 29, page 12, line 29, at end insert—

“(2) Any reconfiguration of utilities taking place pursuant to this Bill at Wormwood Scrubs Common will be undertaken with regard to the value of Wormwood Scrubs Common as an amenity, and shall not involve the creation of any permanent pedestrian or vehicular access.”

Amendment 9, in clause 31, page 13, line 30, at end insert—

“(5A) The Secretary of State shall, within one year of Royal Assent, consult on and prepare plans for the undergrounding of all overhead power lines over a height of 15m in areas of particularly high environmental value or sensitivity, and shall within one year thereafter introduce legislation or alternative regulatory measures (to the extent such measures are required) to permit such undergrounding to take place by the end of 2020.”

This amendment is intended to compensate for the physical effects of the railway in certain areas by removing existing obtrusive and unappealing infrastructure.

Amendment 10, page 13, line 30, at end insert—

“(5A) The Secretary of State shall, within one year of Royal Assent, consult on and prepare plans for the undergrounding of all overhead power lines in the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty over a height of 15m, and shall within one year thereafter introduce legislation or alternative regulatory measures (to the extent such measures are required) to permit such undergrounding to take place by the end of 2020.

(5B) In this section, “Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty” shall mean the area of outstanding natural beauty in the Chilterns designated under section 82(1) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.”

This amendment is intended to compensate for the physical effects of the railway in the Chilterns AONB by removing existing obtrusive and unappealing infrastructure.

Amendment 13, in schedule 1, page 79, leave out lines 47 to 50.

23 Mar 2016 : Column 1645

Mrs Gillan: New clause 6 relates to the Chiltern review group. The Chiltern area of outstanding natural beauty, which has been a designated landscape for more than 50 years, is the only AONB affected by phase 1 of HS2. As it stands, 8.8 km of the AONB is still exposed to the line and remains untunnelled and above ground. It will be a permanent scar on the landscape, and the effects will be irreversible. A Chilterns AONB review group would provide local authorities and key stakeholders with the opportunity to identify greater measures of mitigation and work collaboratively with the promoter to ensure that this precious area was protected to the highest possible level during the construction and operation of the railway.

When the project was first announced, I was assured that local people would have a chance to input their views and expertise into the plans for HS2, but, so far, those opportunities have been limited. This group of amendments would make sure that local people and councils had genuine influence over the future of their area, which will, I believe, be irretrievably damaged by HS2.

3.30 pm

New clause 7 concerns trees. When I petitioned the HS2 hybrid Bill Select Committee, one of my requests was to ensure that HS2 fulfilled the Government’s promise to plant and maintain 2 million trees. The trees that were planted following HS1 were not properly maintained, and, as a result, many of them died. I asked for an undertaking from HS2 to that effect, but that has not been forthcoming.

Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con): I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. Is not new clause 7 actually defective? There does not appear to be any duty to replant trees that have died.

Mrs Gillan: My right hon. Friend makes a valid point. He will notice that there are a large number of amendments on the Order Paper in my name. I have not had the advantage of parliamentary draftsmen; I have had only lawyers, friends and my own wits, with the Clerks of the House to fall back on. However, I think that as a probing amendment, new clause 7 will make its point.

Michael Fabricant: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the problem of trees and ancient woodland demonstrates not only a lack of commitment but a deep lack of understanding by HS2 on these environmental issues?

Mrs Gillan: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I remember considering the matter in a debate in Westminster Hall, which I believe he led. Like me, he is a passionate and long-term supporter of the Woodland Trust, which does valuable work to preserve our precious ancient woodland and to create more native woods.

Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con): I was at the debate about ancient woodland to which my right hon. Friend referred. Does she agree that more ought to be done to try to protect those precious ancient woodland habitats? I understand the economic reasons, but what about the ancient woodland?

23 Mar 2016 : Column 1646

Mrs Gillan: My hon. Friend has already made a name for herself in the House for defending our environment, and I hope that she long continues to do so. I agree with her entirely. The Woodland Trust wants ancient woodland to be removed from the “no net loss” calculation, and it is disappointed that HS2 has not done everything that it should or could do to avoid the loss of ancient woodland.

Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab): I am sure that the right hon. Lady will acknowledge that when HS2’s original estimate of the amount of ancient woodland was reviewed by the Woodland Trust, that estimate was increased by 78%. It is appalling that the initial environmental survey conducted by HS2 did not record accurately the amount of ancient woodland involved.

Mrs Gillan: The hon. Gentleman’s point about inaccurate assessments is, I am afraid, repeated throughout dealings with HS2. This is a particularly bad example. The Woodland Trust petitioned HS2 for a minimum planting ratio of 30:1 to compensate for the fact that irreplaceable habitats will be lost, and the planting of 2 million trees along the wider route is just the starting point. I would have hoped that that could be put in the Bill, which would have made the provision legally binding and ensured that at least some structured replanting and maintenance would take place.

Mr Goodwill: May I underline our commitment to no net environmental loss and our commitment to plant 2 million trees, which will be managed to the best arboricultural standards? One of the problems that we had with the assessment of ancient woodland was getting access to land to carry out such assessments, because some landowners would not grant us access. That will not be a problem with further phases, because we have taken those powers as part of the Bill.

Mrs Gillan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that clarification. I wish I could take it at face value.

Barry Gardiner: As I am sure the right hon. Lady agrees, the Minister’s assurance that there will be no net loss is not worth the air time it is given. Ancient woodland is, of course, as Natural England precisely characterise it, “irreplaceable”. The idea that there can be no net loss of something that is irreplaceable is simply a contradiction in terms.

Mrs Gillan: The hon. Gentleman makes a very valid point. Quite frankly, the fact that anybody actually says they would replace ancient woodland just shows the ignorance of some of the people dealing with this matter.

Mr Goodwill rose—

Mrs Gillan: The Minister is determined to get in again. As we have not heard a lot from him, I will give way.

Mr Goodwill: May I just make the point that translocation of ancient woodland soils is recognised by Natural England as an important mechanism for aiding the creation of ecologically valuable woodlands? If properly planned and undertaken, that can be an important element of compensatory measures, where the loss of ancient woodland is unavoidable.

23 Mar 2016 : Column 1647

Mrs Gillan: I again thank the Minister for that clarification.

Victoria Prentis: I am very concerned about the protection of ancient pastureland. In one particularly egregious case in my constituency, HS2 Ltd suggested that it replace ancient woodland on ancient pastureland, which is even rarer and more valuable.

Mr Grieve rose—

Mrs Gillan: I think my right hon. and learned Friend has had a similar experience.

Mr Grieve: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Those managing pastureland to produce wild flowers were told that, after years of husbandry, somebody was going to stick a wood on it. HS2’s reaction was simply to find a bit of land on which to stick some trees.

Mrs Gillan: I make no comment. That speaks for itself.

Barry Gardiner: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Mrs Gillan: I think I have given way enough to the hon. Gentleman. I want to make some progress because so many Members want to speak on this group of amendments, and we have so little time.

I have tabled new clauses, drafted by a very senior lawyer, on a proposal that is of particular importance to everybody—the adjudicator. The proposal is of great importance and would improve the project immeasurably. New clause 8 provides for an independent regulatory body regularly to review and monitor progress during construction, and to hold HS2 to account in delivering what has been promised in environmental and other mitigations. The construction commissioner or complaints commissioner proposed by the Department for Transport simply will not have the remit or the expertise to monitor such a large project. In addition, it can only cover claims of up to £7,500. I believe we need truly independent scrutiny by an independent body. Some of the panel members should have relevant expertise, and most importantly, it should have enforcement powers.

The history of this project is full of errors and omissions, including the downplaying of the environmental impacts, together with the “It will be fine” and “The people along HS1 did not complain” attitude of the promoter. We cannot trust what HS2 is currently offering. At the moment, it is in effect responsible for policing itself.

The Government assure us that the environmental minimum requirements and the code of construction practice offer the necessary protections, but close examination of the documents does not provide such reassurance. The devil is always in the detail. In practice, it means that although HS2 is required to adopt measures to reduce the adverse environmental effects reported in the environmental statement, it only has to do so

“provided that such measures are reasonably practicable and do not add unreasonable cost or delay to the construction or operation of the project”.

In effect, that gives the nominated undertaker, which is in charge of monitoring itself, a “get out of jail free” card.

23 Mar 2016 : Column 1648

Andrew Bridgen: Is my right hon. Friend as concerned as I am that if HS2 is its own policeman, corners will be cut when the budget comes under further pressure, as it undoubtedly will, and local people and the environment will suffer as a result?

Mrs Gillan: I think that will happen. Once this project is on its way, it will be easy to say that this would delay it or that would cost more. Presumably, it will be very easy for HS2 to say that almost any environmental mitigation could cause delays to the project and add to the cost, and therefore that it is not reasonably practical to implement it.

I have looked at the complaints process. It cannot be sensible or practical to have a complaints process that ends up with the Speaker of the House as the adjudicator of last resort for dispute resolution in relation to the construction of HS2 and, most importantly, the implementation of environmental mitigation. I do not want to be fobbed off by the Minister with reassurances that the Department for Transport has covered it all with the construction commissioner, because we can be very sure that it has not. We owe the people burdened with this project, and the communities that are being destroyed, that extra level of scrutiny and protection, and somebody who they can turn to immediately.

My remaining new clauses concern the tunnels and the look of this project in my constituency. I will summarise those points briefly because many people want to speak. It is not fair to say that my constituency has not been protected at all by additional tunnelling. As the Minister said in his opening remarks—I am told I am to be very grateful—there will now be a tunnel for two thirds of my constituency. My constituents are grateful for that, but 8.8 km of the route through the area of outstanding natural beauty is outside the tunnel. When we are doing such brilliant tunnelling with Crossrail 2, and when we know that tunnelling expertise in this country leads the world, why are we not using that to tunnel under a nationally protected piece of the environment? I have tabled these new clauses to remind the Minister that we will not give up on this issue at any stage, and I hope that the House of Lords will also give it due consideration.

I have tabled an amendment on traffic, which is important because the traffic assessments from HS2 have been atrocious. I have also tabled amendments on pylons, and the possibility that we will be able to take the opportunity offered by HS2’s construction phase to ensure that if pylons are above ground, they are designed to fit in with the countryside, but that if possible they could be placed underground.

I see that you are getting anxious, Madam Deputy Speaker, as am I, because the Government have not given us enough time to do justice to these new clauses. I am sorry that I have not been able to deploy all my arguments, but in the interest of allowing others to speak, and knowing that time has been taken out of this debate by the Opposition’s forcing a vote on something that is not relevant to now or to my constituents, I will let others speak.

Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab): New clause 22 deals with Euston, which is in the middle of my constituency. It is not easy to convey to the House the devastating impact that HS2 will have on my

23 Mar 2016 : Column 1649

constituency, but let me try. HS2 will come into Primrose Hill and crash through to Euston, destroying everything in its path.

Let me give the House the sheer numbers affecting my constituency: 2,986 people live within 60 metres of the construction site, a further 3,186 live within 120 metres, and 11,414 within 300 metres. That is 17,568 people in my constituency within 300 metres of the construction site. Some 220 family houses will be demolished, and up 1,000 people will lose their homes. Unless there is a plan for an integrated station at Euston, there is the risk that another 150 family homes will be lost, affecting another 600 people—1,600 people are at risk of losing their home.

Many of the family homes that are not destroyed will be affected by noise, and according to HS2’s own figures, 1,025 family homes—that is 4,000 people—will be affected by noise that requires mitigating measures. Measures are already in place to consider up to another 850 homes and another 3,400 people. Some 7,000 people in my constituency could need noise mitigation measures because of what will happen with HS2 at Euston.

That is not the end of it. If Euston is redeveloped, 3.5 million tonnes of spoil will need to be removed from the site, which is the equivalent of 26 miles of tunnelling for Crossrail. All that must come out of Euston, and there is no guarantee or assurance that that will be done by rail. The net effect for my constituents is the risk of 800 two-way lorry movements a day to remove that spoil, and 90% of those lorries will be HGVs.

That brings me on to air quality, which is notoriously bad in London. It is particularly bad in the Euston area, and the HS2 environmental statement indicates that HS2 will have a substantial impact on nitrogen dioxide levels in a third of locations in the Euston area. If that was not enough on its own—it will have a devastating impact on the constituency—let me throw in two further factors.

The first factor is time. The original HS2 Bill was premised on the completion of a new HS2 station at Euston by 2026. For my constituents, that seemed like a long time. In September 2015, the Government lodged “Additional Provisions 3”, their current plans for Euston. A new station is now to be developed in three phases. Stage A, to the west of the existing station, involves the construction between 2017 and 2026 of six platforms needed for phase 1. Stage B2, the construction in the second phase of further platforms within the existing station but not all of it, is intended to be completed by 2033. The redevelopment of the existing station, stage B2, is unfunded and unplanned, and may begin before or after 2033—half a station in twice the time.

Another factor—there are more I could add to this litany of devastation in Holborn and St Pancras—is that even in 2033, having endured a construction site for the best part of 20 years, my constituents will not see a complete and integrated station in their constituency. On 1 December 2015, Tim Mould QC, HS2’s counsel, outlined to the Select Committee that a new integrated station at Euston is

“not deliverable within appropriate funding constraints”

and that this is the assessment of

“the government, the Chancellor, the Prime Minister”.

There is no timetable for Government funding to complete the final phase. As a result of the lack of planning and integration, Crossrail 2, which hopes to have an integrated

23 Mar 2016 : Column 1650

station, is now planning on the basis that it may have to build part of its station in Somers Town, removing 150 buildings and displacing another 600 people—half a station in twice the time, with twice the damage.

3.45 pm

A child born next year in my constituency will grow up and leave home knowing nothing but construction work. A pensioner beginning retirement at 70 next year will live out their entire retirement knowing nothing but construction work around them. It is no wonder that at every meeting and everywhere I go in my constituency, anxiety is etched on the faces of everybody who talks to me about HS2. It is an appalling situation, one that is wholly unacceptable on any basis.

I was elected to represent the people of Holborn and St Pancras. It is my privilege to do so; it is also my duty. I speak to each and every one of my constituents when I say that I will stand with them and fight with them to resist the wholly unacceptable damage that HS2 will bring to our communities.

Mr Grieve: I will be extremely brief on the issue of the adjudicator. I listened very carefully to what the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) said and I have great sympathy with all the points he makes. This is why I am bound to say that I find it so odd that the Government will not accept the creative idea of having an office of the HS2 adjudicator. The scale of the project makes it desirable to have an independent arbitration authority to resolve the inevitable disputes that will arise over the way in which the scheme is carried out. If I may say so to the Minister, I would have thought it very much in the Government’s interests to accept this idea; otherwise, the burden will inevitably fall on Members of Parliament whose constituencies are affected, and the House’s time will be taken up with constant arguments about how HS2 is not observing its obligations or carrying out the work in accordance with the intention it originally presented.

This is going to cause massive problems for the Minister and his Department and will probably clog up some of the House’s business time. It is all the more reason to have an independent adjudicator who is approachable exactly like an ombudsman and who can take on some of that burden and do it professionally and in a manner that reassures people and commands respect. I therefore strongly urge the Minister to accept new clause 8. It would be regrettable if the Government did not, because, as I say, an extra burden would fall on their shoulders as a result of the many problems that will inevitably arise during construction of the project.

Andy McDonald: I wish to speak to new clause 22 on the construction of an integrated station at Euston.

There have been many discussions and consultations between HS2 and Camden Borough Council about Euston, and the new clause draws on the assurances that HS2 gave to Camden. The thrust behind this long and technical new clause reflects the fact that the redevelopment of Euston presents an enormous opportunity to build something of real worth to accommodate not only the station to the west for HS2 phase 1 and all its works but the redevelopment of the mainline station, and to take into account the requirements of phase 1 and, in due course, phase 2, including in anticipation of Crossrail 2 in the fullness of time.

23 Mar 2016 : Column 1651

Michael Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman is right to talk about the integration between Crossrail and Euston and what might be possible at Euston, but does he agree that it is completely mad that HS2, which will be coming from the north, does not go to St Pancras or even connect with HS1 to enable people to travel to the continent?

Andy McDonald: That point has been raised several times. The intention, as expressed in the documents, is to have a pedestrian connection between them.

An overarching approach to an integrated station would not only take account of all the anticipated works but achieve the objectives of securing the best possible outcomes for the residents of Camden and minimising the enormous disruption they will undoubtedly suffer. Many properties will be demolished and other properties will be in extremely close proximity to the works; public open spaces will be lost; there will be fleets of heavy goods vehicles and commercial vehicles; and noise pollution will undoubtedly disrupt the peaceable enjoyment of many properties, including in places such as Cobourg Street, which is a tranquil community with a quiet courtyard at its heart, notwithstanding its close proximity to busy traffic and the railway station. Businesses in streets like Drummond Street will also be disturbed.

We are asking the good people of Camden to put up with a great deal and to make huge sacrifices for the benefit of the nation, and Labour has tried to do all it can, in new clause 22 and in Committee, to mitigate the impact on the quality of life for residents. We acknowledge the sincerity of the Minister and his colleagues in working to that objective, but we take the view that this is so important that the assurances given ought to be in the Bill and have the full force of law.

We seek to minimise the amount of excavated material and construction materials transported into and around the site by road and to have as much as possible moved by rail. Camden Council has developed a Euston area plan, and we propose that any designs for the enlarged Euston station take full cognisance of that plan and other such framework documents and relevant guidance. The assurances talk of various boards, including the Euston strategic board, the Euston station strategic redevelopment board and the Euston integrated programme board, which bring together a number of prescribed partners. We seek to ensure that the nominated undertaker—the relevant body carrying out the HS2 works—is obliged to participate in those boards, as the assurances given by HS2 so describe.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if Euston station were holistically designed and developed, it would provide a huge opportunity for regeneration in the Euston area and produce a lot of good quality local affordable housing to replace some of the affordable housing that will be devastated by HS2?

Andy McDonald: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. That is the thrust of our new clause, which I trust he will support. It stipulates that the redevelopment board will advise the Secretary of State on the delivery of an “integrated and comprehensive design” for the enlarged Euston station, and it is for the integrated programme board to make sure that the designs and construction plans for Euston fit with proposals for other Euston schemes.

23 Mar 2016 : Column 1652

Access is a real issue, so while the construction is under way, which it will be for many years, we want to ensure that pedestrians and cyclists have continuous access through the site, east to west and north to south, insofar as it is “reasonably practicable” to do so. A design panel will work to ensure that the relevant partners can agree an appropriate design. Whoever is appointed for these purposes by HS2 will be obliged to work with that panel to ensure full buy-in to the design. Indeed, there will be an obligation on the nominated undertaker to take proper notice of the recommendations made by the design panel, and if for some reason the nominated undertaker does not follow those recommendations, our new clause states that it will be required to explain why that is so. The new clause makes sure that the community is properly engaged throughout the construction works at Euston so that its concerns will be recognised and its voice heard.

The provision is even more important, given today’s publication of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s report on a complaint about HS2. It effectively concludes that there are fundamental problems with the way HS2 Ltd communicates with the residents affected by their plans and the way it handles complaints.

The report dealt with specific complaints, but it is worrying that the Chairman of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee has said:

“There is still a culture of defensive communication and misinformation within this public body and that is not acceptable. Unless those responsible for delivering HS2 understand that first and foremost they serve the public, they will continue to be criticised for having complete disregard for the people, some of them vulnerable, who are impacted by this large-scale infrastructure project.”

Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab) rose—

Andy McDonald: If my hon. Friend would not mind, I am conscious of my time drifting away.

The Chairman continued:

“We expect HS2 Ltd to prioritise its response to Ian Bynoe’s forthcoming recommendations on communication and engagement and on complaint handling. This is a matter of primary importance for HS2 Ltd, and must be treated as such.”

I trust that the Minister will take on board the criticisms of the Committee and make sure that any necessary cultural and other changes are made so that there is no such repetition. I urge him further to consider, even at this late stage, accepting our representations in the context of this new clause.

The new clause also provides that when the Secretary of State sets out the Government’s periodic railway investment plans, in what we have come to term “control periods”, he or she should set out the costs of and funding for the anticipated works in the planning period before the works start and during the control period in which the works will fall.

Yes, previous infrastructure projects have had similar assurances woven into them and they have been observed, but this is such a huge infrastructural undertaking, the likes of which has never been done before in such a manner, on such a scale or over such a lengthy period of time. We believe that the people of Camden need to have more than just the assurances that have been given. On this occasion, we believe that we have to take the extra step of working those assurances directly into the Bill.

23 Mar 2016 : Column 1653

The Minister will not need me to remind him that throughout the Public Bill Committee, Labour tabled a number of amendments and new clauses that pressed the Government to justify the inclusion of wide-ranging blanket powers granted to the Secretary of State for the purposes of the construction and operation of HS2. Each time the Minister responded by resisting our attempt to curtail the scope of the Secretary of State’s powers on the basis that the Government was taking a “belt and braces” approach so as to be absolutely sure. I am now therefore asking for the loan of his belt and braces— not to protect my dignity, but to protect the people of Camden.

I do not intend to impugn the sincerity of HS2 Ltd or of the Minister, and he knows that. In the light of the comments from the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee and the special set of circumstances that apply, we firmly believe that these provisions need to be enshrined in statute. I shall test the will of the House on new clause 22 by putting it to the vote.

Mrs Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con): I have tabled some fresh amendments which are designed to help colleagues whose constituencies are along the line of route. In particular I shall highlight the important issue of the adjudicator, and I shall support my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) on new clause 7. I want to impress on the Government that when I was Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and published the “Natural Environment” White Paper, it was made clear that the objective was for a net positive outcome from offsetting. That is more ambitious than no net loss, and it can be achieved by, for example, combining offsets and regenerating degraded land such as the Tame river valley on the east of Birmingham, where the spur to Birmingham station will be built.

4 pm

My No. 1 ask for my constituency remains a tunnel to avoid the 40-foot flyover that will sever the parish of Berkswell, separating the primary school from the secondary school. I must impress on the Minister the opportunity that that would create to approach the new station underground, thereby preserving the flexibility above ground in an area where the land will be of extremely high value.

I support new clauses 16 and 17, new schedules 2 and 3, and amendments 11, 12 and 13. New clause 16, which deals with speed and noise limitation, would ensure better protection from noise levels for those living alongside the whole course of the line. Train speed, contingent on noise, is an important concept not previously examined, and the new clause would ensure that HS2 must consider it carefully. New clause 17 would prohibit the entry of designated vehicles into designated areas. New schedule 2 is specific to my constituency, but new schedule 3 would cover any designated area. The new schedules would enable the Secretary of State to consider prohibiting HS2 contract vehicles weighing more than 8 tonnes from using certain roads during the construction phase, thus helping to ease the impact on local people.

Amendment 12 seeks to give relevant parish and town councils a greater say over the conditions within the localised planning applications to ensure that they

23 Mar 2016 : Column 1654

can influence the design of what they will have to live with. Amendment 13, which is also specific to my constituency, seeks to protect residents of Hampton-in-Arden from a proposal that could, theoretically, turn a once quiet country lane into a rat run on the approach to the new station. I have previously submitted a petition with 746 signatures to the House.

I want to draw attention to a wider concern about the process behind the decisions that have been made. I have great respect for the members of the Select Committee, who “listened for England” over a 22-month period. However, there was a problem. If a deal could be cut in the corridor outside the Select Committee while one party was giving evidence, the other was excluded. The result of that was a lack of transparency which, in this day and age, is unfair to some of the petitioners.

Unfortunately for me, new clause 36 was not selected, but it underlines the importance of integrating the HS2 project with existing road and rail networks.

HS2 is a cross that some of us are having to bear. The load is heavy for our parliamentary offices. Our staff have had to put up with an extremely difficult period while serving as the interface with our constituents. However, I am still optimistic that this hybrid Bill will be amended in the other place: I do not view the Bill we are examining today as the final item.

Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab): New clauses 34 and 35, which I tabled, relate to construction at Canterbury Works and Alexandra Place in my constituency. I shall say something about the environmental impacts, but before that I want to make a point about the poor communication on the part of HS2, which has also been mentioned by Conservative Members.

Last October, along with volunteers, I delivered letters to constituents living near Canterbury Works. It was the first time that many of them had even heard of the plans, which is simply not good enough. Many of the people who live near Canterbury Works and the Alexandra and Ainsworth estate speak English as a second language, and HS2’s poor communication meant that they had no idea of what was coming along the tracks towards them as a result of this devastating scheme. My new clauses would change that situation, and give some information and assurances to the people whose lives will be blighted by the scheme.

At Canterbury Works, which is in the Brent area of my constituency, a vent shaft will be built in a very deprived area next to a school playground. Parents of pupils at the school have told me repeatedly how detrimental the construction will be to their children’s education, health and welfare. Arancha, a constituent and the parent of a pupil at the school, raised specific concerns about air pollution. She said:

“Children will be directly affected by the impact of noise levels from construction, causing disruption to their learning experience, in particular for the percentage of pupils with Special Educational Needs”.

Her concerns do not stand in isolation; they exist in a socioeconomic context that demands that south Kilburn should be given a better deal than the upheaval being imposed by HS2. The areas surrounding the proposed vent shaft in Brent are in the top 1% in the country for income deprivation affecting children.

23 Mar 2016 : Column 1655

Let me turn to the other borough in my constituency, Camden. At Alexandra Place, another vent shaft will be built adjacent to crowded businesses and residential properties, and 100 vehicles a day will be emitting dangerous fumes within the confines of narrow roads that are surrounded on all sides by apartment buildings. Residents of a care home and the children living in the apartments on Alexandra Place will face increased risks to their health for many years. An article in The Sunday Times in October said that pollution in London was stunting the growth of children’s lungs, so when the Select Committee report states that “together” the two sites that I have named are “the most sensitive” locations for vent shafts in an urban area, its words should be taken seriously.

I know that there is not much time, so I shall finish by saying that I do not object to transport schemes or infrastructure projects without giving them the utmost consideration. However, I am proud to call my constituency of Hampstead and Kilburn home, because it is where I grew up, and the welfare of my constituents comes first. This scheme will blight their lives. It will affect the most vulnerable, and the years of construction will cause confusion and upheaval to people already living in deprived communities. This is my reason for speaking out against a scheme that will affect the most vulnerable in Hampstead and Kilburn.

Victoria Prentis: I should like to add my support to the amendments relating to the office of the adjudicator, which have been debated so well this afternoon. It is critical for my constituents to have someone who can intervene between them and HS2, and the cross-party, high-level legal support for those amendments should be noted by the Secretary of State and the House.

The amendments tabled in my name are specific and I shall deal with them briefly. New clause 23 relates to Mixbury. The estimated frequency of the trains means that the noise will be almost continuous in that unspoiled village, which has as many stables as houses. HS2 has failed to engage with the community in Mixbury—this is a good example of failure to engage—on the question of adequate noise mitigation. The community is so concerned that the villagers are considering fundraising to install noise barriers themselves. I would like the House to take note of that.

New clause 24 relates to Wardington, which, like so many areas in my constituency, has an existing traffic problem. HS2 construction traffic will turn that problem into a vision of hell. The Select Committee agreed that the village would struggle to cope. We have made sensible suggestions, including the movement of spoil by conveyor over the A43 and up the haul road. The new clause asks the Secretary of State to commission a review of the problem.

New clause 25 relates to bridleways. My constituency has been repeatedly dissected over the centuries, including by the Oxford-Birmingham canal and, 29 years ago, by the building of the M40. Both brought great benefits to our area, but our bridleways have suffered. I am determined that they should not suffer again, particularly in pursuit of a scheme that brings no benefit to my constituents.

23 Mar 2016 : Column 1656

Andy Slaughter: Given the lack of time, I shall speak only to amendment 16, tabled in my name, which seeks to give statutory protection to Wormwood Scrubs common. I should really say “more statutory protection” because, as metropolitan open land and strategic defence land, it is already protected by an Act of Parliament. More importantly, it hosts an extraordinary range of sports and pastimes. Thousands of disabled children ride at the pony centre every year. An organisation called the Friends of Wormwood Scrubs is seeking to protect its 200 acres of semi-wilderness, which form a substantial proportion of my constituency—an area in which open spaces are at a premium.

However, in the time since HS2 was proposed, we have been asked to put a viaduct across it, and we have been told that it could be turned into formal gardens and that it could be amenity space for the luxury flats being built around the HS2 route. We are now being told that it will be a transit way for hundreds of thousands of people to walk across, which would essentially destroy this London landmark forever.

Although I clearly will not today get the protection that I am seeking, I thank the Select Committee for recognising my representations and acknowledging that they were my only representations. I say to the Government and to HS2 Ltd that it will be a crime if this open space is despoiled over the course of the development.

I wanted to make some more general comments as I think my constituency will see more development than any other. I will not say that I am as adversely affected as other hon. and right hon. Members, and some of the development is of course welcome, but if I am able to catch your eye on Third Reading, Madam Deputy Speaker, I can perhaps make some of those points then. I entirely support what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) and my hon. Friends the Members for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) and for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) said about the effect on their residents and businesses. As they used to be my constituents, I mention the residents of Wells House Road, Midland Terrace and Stephenson Street, whose homes will be blighted for many years to come and will be entirely surrounded by HS2 works.

I could have tabled something similar to new clause 22 asking for the Old Oak Common development to be regulated, but that should not be necessary because the London Sustainable Development Commission is there to deal with such matters. At the moment, however, it is not working. I hope that it will work under a new Mayor, because we currently have unregulated development on the site and a huge opportunity cost, which is not allowing for proper exploitation of and investment in that land.

Mr Goodwill: The new clauses and amendments principally concern environmental issues, which the Government take very seriously. The Bill and the environmental minimum requirements establish robust environmental controls that have proved to be an effective mechanism on other projects, such as Crossrail and the channel tunnel rail link. In addition, many of the new clauses and amendments relate to issues on which we have already provided assurances through the Select Committee process. Some comments were made during the debate, not least from the Opposition Front-Bench team, about those assurances not being worth the paper

23 Mar 2016 : Column 1657

on which they were written, but they are commitments made to Parliament by the Secretary of State and are enforced by Parliament. The process worked well for Crossrail and the channel tunnel rail link, so we do not need a belt when have more than adequate braces—or “gallusses” as we call them in my part of the world. The Select Committee process led to nearly 400 alterations to the scheme and provided some 1,600 assurances and undertakings to those affected by HS2.

I specifically want to touch on new clause 22, relating to the development of an integrated station at Euston, and I was pleased that the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) managed to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. We share an ambition for the integrated redevelopment of Euston station and assurances have been provided to the London Borough of Camden. Indeed, I recently met the leader of the council to discuss such matters. Work is already under way regarding the commitments given in the assurances to Camden, Transport for London and the Greater London Authority on the overall integration of works at Euston and the co-ordination with Crossrail 2. I can also confirm that funding is available to progress initial feasibility work for the preparation of an outline masterplan for Euston station, which includes the classic, Network Rail element of the station.

Andrew Bridgen: Will the Minister inform the House as to how many conventional platforms will have to be sacrificed at Euston to accommodate HS2?

Mr Goodwill: We have made it quite clear that phasing the development of the high-speed platforms at Euston will give us the opportunity to carry out some of that work, and we have changed the phasing to make it possible to operate other services into Euston. Indeed, we estimate that around a third of HS2 passengers will alight at Old Oak Common and use the Elizabeth line to access central London or Heathrow. While I recognise the desire to highlight the importance of such issues through new clause 22, legislation is unnecessary for Euston when progress has been and is being made.

Transparency was mentioned by several hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), and we have appointed a residents commissioner to hold HS2 Ltd to account for how it communicates with residents and have committed to appoint a construction commissioner to deal with complaints that cannot be addressed by HS2 Ltd and its contractors. I hope that also reassures my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve).

On the Chilterns area of outstanding natural beauty review group, we have already committed to establish a Chilterns AONB group.

4.15 pm

Mr Grieve: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Goodwill: I must make progress because we have only a minute left. On residential demolitions, we have committed to, and are progressing with Camden Council on, the replacement of all lost social housing in Euston as a result of HS2. On the prohibition of vehicles, an issue raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman) and my hon. Friend the Member

23 Mar 2016 : Column 1658

for Banbury, the Bill already requires local authorities to approve local routes, so the amendment on that is unnecessary.

Many of the proposed new clauses and amendments would duplicate existing obligations already made to Parliament, and I do not believe it necessary to include them in the Bill. I therefore urge hon. Members to reject the proposed new clauses, new schedules and amendments.

Mrs Gillan: In the light of the unsatisfactory reply from the Minister and the fact that he has relied again on saying that his appointees are adequate for the scrutiny of this project, I will have no other choice than to push new clause 8, which deals with the office of the HS2 adjudicator, to a vote. As for new clause 6, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

4.16 pm

Two hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on consideration, the proceedings were interrupted. (Programme Order, 22nd March)

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

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).” —(Mrs Gillan.)

Brought up.

Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.

The House divided:

Ayes 43, Noes 245.

Division No. 229]

[

4.1

6

pm

AYES

Afriyie, Adam

Baker, Mr Steve

Bone, Mr Peter

Brady, Mr Graham

Carswell, Mr Douglas

Cash, Sir William

Cunningham, Mr Jim

Edwards, Jonathan

Elliott, Tom

Fabricant, Michael

Farrelly, Paul

Flynn, Paul

Gillan, rh Mrs Cheryl

Grieve, rh Mr Dominic

Hoey, Kate

Hollobone, Mr Philip

Hopkins, Kelvin

Huq, Dr Rupa

Kinahan, Danny

Lamb, rh Norman

Lefroy, Jeremy

Loughton, Tim

Lucas, Caroline

Mulholland, Greg

Nuttall, Mr David

Prentis, Victoria

Pugh, John

Redwood, rh John

Ritchie, Ms Margaret

Robertson, Mr Laurence

Robinson, Mr Geoffrey

Saville Roberts, Liz

Sheerman, Mr Barry

Siddiq, Tulip

Skinner, Mr Dennis

Spelman, rh Mrs Caroline

Starmer, Keir

Tracey, Craig

Turner, Mr Andrew

Tyrie, rh Mr Andrew

White, Chris

Williams, Hywel

Williams, Mr Mark

Tellers for the Ayes:

Mrs Anne Main

and

Andrew Bridgen

NOES

Aldous, Peter

Allan, Lucy

Allen, Heidi

Amess, Sir David

Andrew, Stuart

Ansell, Caroline

Argar, Edward

Atkins, Victoria

Bacon, Mr Richard

Baldwin, Harriett

Barwell, Gavin

Bebb, Guto

Benyon, Richard

Berry, Jake

Bingham, Andrew

Blackman, Bob

Blunt, Crispin

Boles, Nick

Brazier, Mr Julian

Brine, Steve

Brokenshire, rh James

Buckland, Robert

Burns, Conor

Burns, rh Sir Simon

Burrowes, Mr David

Burt, rh Alistair

Cairns, Alun

Cameron, rh Mr David

Carmichael, Neil

Cartlidge, James

Caulfield, Maria

Chalk, Alex

Chishti, Rehman

Churchill, Jo

Clark, rh Greg

Clarke, rh Mr Kenneth

Cleverly, James

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

Dinenage, Caroline

Djanogly, Mr Jonathan

Dodds, rh Mr Nigel

Double, Steve

Dowden, Oliver

Doyle-Price, Jackie

Drummond, Mrs Flick

Duddridge, James

Duncan, rh Sir Alan

Duncan Smith, rh Mr Iain

Dunne, Mr Philip

Ellis, Michael

Ellison, Jane

Ellwood, Mr Tobias

Elphicke, Charlie

Eustice, George

Evans, Graham

Evennett, rh Mr David

Fallon, rh 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

Glen, John

Goodwill, Mr Robert

Gove, rh Michael

Graham, Richard

Grant, Mrs Helen

Grayling, rh Chris

Green, Chris

Green, rh Damian

Greening, rh Justine

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

Hinds, Damian

Hoare, Simon

Hollingbery, George

Hollinrake, Kevin

Holloway, Mr Adam

Hopkins, Kris

Howarth, Sir Gerald

Howell, John

Howlett, Ben

Huddleston, Nigel

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

Kirby, Simon

Knight, rh Sir Greg

Knight, Julian

Kwarteng, Kwasi

Lancaster, Mark

Latham, Pauline

Leslie, Charlotte

Letwin, rh Mr Oliver

Lewis, Brandon

Lilley, rh Mr Peter

Lumley, Karen

Mackinlay, Craig

Mackintosh, David

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

Nokes, Caroline

Osborne, rh Mr George

Parish, Neil

Patel, rh Priti

Penrose, John

Perry, Claire

Philp, Chris

Poulter, Dr Daniel

Pow, Rebecca

Prisk, Mr Mark

Pursglove, Tom

Quince, Will

Raab, Mr Dominic

Rees-Mogg, Mr Jacob

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

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

Tredinnick, David

Trevelyan, Mrs Anne-Marie

Tugendhat, Tom

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

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

and

Sarah Newton

Question accordingly negatived.

23 Mar 2016 : Column 1659

23 Mar 2016 : Column 1660

23 Mar 2016 : Column 1661

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,

(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

23 Mar 2016 : Column 1662

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,

(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.”—(Andy McDonald.)

Brought up.

Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.

The House divided:

Ayes 190, Noes 254.

Division No. 230]

[

4.27 pm

AYES

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

Coaker, Vernon

Cooper, Julie

Cooper, rh Yvette

Corbyn, rh Jeremy

Cox, Jo

Coyle, Neil

Creagh, Mary

Creasy, Stella

Cruddas, Jon

Cryer, John

Cunningham, Alex

Cunningham, Mr Jim

Dakin, Nic

Danczuk, Simon

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

Foxcroft, Vicky

Gapes, Mike

Gardiner, Barry

Gillan, rh Mrs Cheryl

Glass, Pat

Glindon, Mary

Green, Kate

Greenwood, Lilian

Greenwood, Margaret

Grieve, rh Mr Dominic

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

Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald

Keeley, Barbara

Kendall, Liz

Kinnock, Stephen

Kyle, Peter

Lamb, rh Norman

Lavery, Ian

Lefroy, Jeremy

Leslie, Chris

Lewell-Buck, Mrs Emma

Lewis, Clive

Long Bailey, Rebecca

Lucas, Caroline

Mactaggart, rh Fiona

Madders, Justin

Mahmood, Shabana

Malhotra, Seema

Mann, John

Marris, Rob

Marsden, Mr Gordon

Maskell, Rachael

Matheson, Christian

McCabe, Steve

McCarthy, Kerry

McDonagh, Siobhain

McDonald, Andy

McDonnell, Dr Alasdair

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

Murray, Ian

Nandy, Lisa

Nuttall, Mr David

Onn, Melanie

Onwurah, Chi

Osamor, Kate

Owen, Albert

Pearce, Teresa

Pennycook, Matthew

Phillips, Jess

Powell, Lucy

Prentis, Victoria

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

Tracey, Craig

Trickett, Jon

Turley, Anna

Twigg, Derek

Twigg, Stephen

Umunna, Mr Chuka

Vaz, rh Keith

Vaz, Valerie

West, Catherine

White, Chris

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:

Jeff Smith

and

Judith Cummins

NOES

Aldous, Peter

Allan, Lucy

Allen, Heidi

Amess, Sir David

Andrew, Stuart

Ansell, Caroline

Argar, Edward

Atkins, Victoria

Bacon, Mr Richard

Baldwin, Harriett

Barwell, Gavin

Bebb, Guto

Benyon, Richard

Berry, Jake

Bingham, Andrew

Blackman, Bob

Blunt, Crispin

Boles, Nick

Bone, Mr Peter

Borwick, Victoria

Brazier, Mr Julian

Bridgen, Andrew

Brine, Steve

Brokenshire, rh James

Buckland, Robert

Burns, Conor

Burns, rh Sir Simon

Burrowes, Mr David

Burt, rh Alistair

Cairns, Alun

Cameron, rh Mr David

Carmichael, Neil

Carswell, Mr Douglas

Cartlidge, James

Caulfield, Maria

Chalk, Alex

Chishti, Rehman

Churchill, Jo

Clark, rh Greg

Clarke, rh Mr Kenneth

Cleverly, James

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

Dinenage, Caroline

Djanogly, Mr Jonathan

Dodds, rh Mr Nigel

Double, Steve

Dowden, Oliver

Doyle-Price, Jackie

Drummond, Mrs Flick

Duddridge, James

Duncan, rh Sir Alan

Duncan Smith, rh Mr Iain

Dunne, Mr Philip

Elliott, Tom

Ellis, Michael

Ellison, Jane

Ellwood, Mr Tobias

Elphicke, Charlie

Eustice, George

Evans, Graham

Evennett, rh Mr David

Fallon, rh 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

Glen, John

Goodwill, Mr Robert

Gove, rh Michael

Graham, Richard

Grant, Mrs Helen

Grayling, rh Chris

Green, Chris

Green, rh Damian

Greening, rh Justine

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

Hinds, Damian

Hoare, Simon

Hollingbery, George

Hollinrake, Kevin

Hollobone, Mr Philip

Holloway, Mr Adam

Hopkins, Kris

Howarth, Sir Gerald

Howell, John

Howlett, Ben

Huddleston, Nigel

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

Leslie, Charlotte

Letwin, rh Mr Oliver

Lewis, Brandon

Lilley, rh Mr Peter

Lumley, Karen

Mackinlay, Craig

Mackintosh, David

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

Nokes, Caroline

Osborne, rh Mr George

Parish, Neil

Patel, rh Priti

Penrose, John

Perry, Claire

Philp, Chris

Poulter, Dr Daniel

Pow, Rebecca

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

Tredinnick, David

Trevelyan, Mrs Anne-Marie

Tugendhat, Tom

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

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:

Sarah Newton

and

Guy Opperman

Question accordingly negatived.

23 Mar 2016 : Column 1663

23 Mar 2016 : Column 1664

23 Mar 2016 : Column 1665

Third Reading

Queen’s consent signified.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel): I inform the House that the amendments on the Order Paper have not been selected.

4.39 pm

Mr McLoughlin: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Our railways and roads power our economy. It is almost two centuries since this House gave its backing to the pioneering railway from London to Birmingham—a

23 Mar 2016 : Column 1666

line that changed our country, and on which many of our great cities still rely today. Of course, we could leave it as it is for another two centuries—congested and unreliable—and suffer the consequences in lost growth, lost jobs and lost opportunities, particularly in the midlands and the north. However, the House has already shown that it can do much better than that, by backing a new high-speed route, alongside other transport investments in road and rail access across the country.

In 2013, Parliament passed the High Speed Rail (Preparation) Act 2013, paving the way for HS2. That was backed by welcome support and co-operation from all parts of the House, for which I thank all parties. We have made outstanding progress since then. British contractors are bidding to build the line. British apprentices are waiting to work on it. British cities are waiting to benefit from it. That is why today’s vote is so important.

Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab): Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr McLoughlin: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, a lot of people have been here all afternoon. We have a fairly short period for Third Reading, and I want to give other people the opportunity to speak.

On what will be a Great British railway, phase 1 will be the bedrock of the new network. Phase 2a will take it to Crewe. Phase 2b will take it onwards to Manchester and Leeds.

Our trains are more than twice as busy as they were 20 years ago, and growth will continue. HS2 will help us to cope. It will work, it will be quick, it will be reliable, it will be safe and it will be clean. When it is finished, we will wonder why we took so long in getting around to building it.

Many hon. Members will want to speak, so I will keep my remaining remarks short. I will touch on the detail of the Bill. I will also set out the work that has been done on the environment. Then I want to describe what will come next, including what we are doing to build skills and manage costs.

First, the Bill authorises the first stage of HS2, from London to Birmingham. The Bill has undergone more than two years of intense parliamentary scrutiny since 2013. Even before the phase 1 Bill was introduced, the principles of HS2 were extensively debated on the Floor of the House. In April 2014, we had the Second Reading of the phase 1 Bill.

There was then a special Select Committee. I thank all members of the Committee, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr Syms), who chaired it so ably. I also pay special tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for North West Norfolk (Sir Henry Bellingham) and for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), who, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Poole, sat on it for the whole Committee stage.

The Committee heard over 1,500 petitions during 160 sittings. It sat for over 700 hours, and over 15,000 pieces of evidence were provided to it. It published its second special report on 22 February this year. The Government published their response, accepting the Committee’s recommendations.

Many of the changes made to the scheme in the Select Committee related to the environmental impacts. Building any road or rail link has impacts, but we will

23 Mar 2016 : Column 1667

build this link carefully, and we will build it right. For example, HS2 Ltd has today started to procure up to 7 million trees to plant alongside the line to help it blend in with the landscape. The changes made in Select Committee will mean less land take, more noise barriers and longer tunnels.

Rebecca Pow: I totally understand the economic reasons for this project, but may I just put in a bid for nature and for ancient woodland to be given the reverence it deserves? Much of it is already going to be undermined and threatened, so will the Secretary of State please ensure that this irreplaceable habitat is given all the reverence it deserves?

Mr McLoughlin: I can assure my hon. Friend that, as I think I have shown, given the time taken in Select Committee, the way in which procedures can be put in place and the way in which the Woodland Trust appeared before the Select Committee to make its case, that that will be taken into account. As I have said, the planting of new trees is an important part of the work that has been done.

We have done a huge amount to assess the environmental impacts. More than 50,000 pages of environmental assessments have been provided to the House. We have produced a statement of reasons setting out why we believe it is correct to proceed with HS2. That information is important to ensure that the House makes its decisions to support this vital project in the light of the environmental effects.

I expect construction of HS2 phase 1, between London and Birmingham, to begin next year. To enable that, HS2 Ltd has this morning announced that nine firms have now been shortlisted for the civil engineering contracts for the line. Those contracts alone will create more than 14,000 jobs, and we want those jobs to be British jobs. That is why the HS2 skills college, with sites in Birmingham and Doncaster, will open its doors next year, to train our young people to take up those opportunities.

It is not all about jobs; it is also about materials. HS2 will need approximately 2 million tonnes of steel over the next 10 years, and we are already holding discussions with UK suppliers to make sure that they are in the best possible position to win those contracts.

Later this year, I will set out my decisions on HS2 phase 2. As that happens, we must have a firm grip on costs. The November 2015 spending review confirmed a budget for the whole of HS2 of £55.7 billion at 2015 prices. HS2 is a major commitment of public money, but it is an investment that Britain must make, and it can afford to do so: the cost of HS2 equates to about 0.14% of UK GDP in the spending review period.

I respect the fact that there are those in this House who take a different view of the project, but it is about the future of our nation. It is a bold new piece of infrastructure that will be open to passengers in just 10 years’ time. This is about giving strength not just to the north, but to the midlands. Today I can get a high-speed train to Paris and other parts of Europe, but not to Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds or Scotland. This is about boosting the links to the midlands manufacturing heartland and the connections to Leeds, York, the north-east and Edinburgh, and to the north-west, Liverpool, Manchester and Glasgow. It is about making

23 Mar 2016 : Column 1668

HS2 a part of our national rail network, including Euston, where we are not only building a world-class high-speed rail station, but funding work by Network Rail to prepare for the masterplan for Euston station, which is an important step forward in our vision of an integrated hub that will enhance the area. At Old Oak Common, I have agreed to the transfer of land to the development corporation, paving the way for more than of 25,000 new homes and 65,000 jobs.

High Speed 2 is a measure of our ambition as a country and of our willingness to look beyond the immediate future and to take a hard-headed view of what we need to succeed as a nation. This is a railway that will unlock that future. I urge colleagues to support the Bill’s Third Reading, as they have done to date, and the carry-over motions so that it can continue its passage in the next Session.

I commend the Bill to the House.

Several hon. Members rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel): Order. I remind hon. Members that we have only half an hour to debate Third Reading and an awful lot of Members wish to speak, so there will be a speech limit of three minutes on all Back-Bench contributions in the hope that we can get as many people in as possible. If you use less time, everybody will be grateful.

4.47 pm

Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab): Today’s proceedings mark the end of a long process and I am sure the House will want to express its gratitude to all those who served on the Bill Select Committee, the Clerks and all those who petitioned or who assisted the petitioners in making their case. The project has undoubtedly been improved by the parliamentary scrutiny it has received. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), who represented the Opposition with great skill in the Public Bill Committee and on Report.

HS2 is a Labour project. When the high-speed rail Command Paper was published in March 2010, the urgent need for greater capacity on our rail network was at its heart. Since that paper was published, passenger numbers have grown by a third. Punctuality has declined as the constraints on our existing infrastructure grow. The case for HS2 was based on the assumption that passenger demand would grow by 2.2% a year; in reality, the average is more than 5%. The case for HS2 has not weakened in the past six years—it has grown stronger and more urgent.

Our north-south lines are testing the limits of their capacity. The midland main line has been officially designated as “congested infrastructure” and freight services are being turned away. The east coast operator has said that

“this route faces track capacity limit.”

Nowhere is our capacity shortfall more keenly felt than on the west coast main line between London and Birmingham, which is the most congested part of the busiest and most complex mixed-use line in Europe, carrying a quarter of all passengers and freight. At least £9 billion was spent on a hugely disruptive modernisation package for the line, and it did not deliver the benefits we were promised. Just a few years on, we have used up almost all the extra capacity, and even if we lengthened

23 Mar 2016 : Column 1669

every train and converted every first-class carriage to standard, that would not be enough and it would not enable us to run a single extra train. On some sections of the west coast main line, the notorious curves and gradients are pre-Victorian, and they cannot be altered. We have reached the practical limits of the existing infrastructure, and new signalling would have limited benefits on such a busy route, where inter-city commuter and freight services all compete for scarce paths. The scale of the capacity challenge requires us to take action. Commuter services have already been cut back in the west midlands and on the approaches to Manchester because of a lack of capacity on our main lines.

Paul Farrelly: Does my hon. Friend recognise that in its current form, the Bill does not satisfy the concerns of north Staffordshire? There is no connectivity with or stop for Stoke-on-Trent, which is a far greater conurbation with a bigger economy that that of Crewe.

Lilian Greenwood: I am sure that my hon. Friend appreciates that the Bill deals with the creation of the line between London and Birmingham. I am sure that we will return to questions of connectivity when we reach phase 2.

As I was saying, freight operators are turned away, forcing lorries on to our already congested motorways. That has real consequences for our ability to meet our greenhouse gas emissions targets. I have visited places in the areas that my hon. Friend talked about south of Stoke where local stations have closed, not 50 years ago under Dr Beeching but in the last decade after paths for local services were reassigned.

Some might ask why we are investing in new infrastructure when sections of the existing network need to be upgraded, as, of course, they must be. The Great Western electrification scheme, the costs of which have risen by more than 400% in just five years, is a sobering reminder that route upgrades are no panacea. We could spend an equivalent sum on a conventional modernisation programme, but it would lead to 2,000 weekends of closure and misery for passengers, and it would trigger enormous compensation payments to train operators. At the end of such a project, a conventional upgrade would deliver less than half the additional capacity of a new line. By contrast, new build infrastructure is more resilient and it will allow us to integrate high-speed rail with existing lines, revolutionising journeys between cities directly on the route and beyond it.

That potential is reflected in the support for this project not just from the leaders of Birmingham, Manchester, Nottingham, Sheffield and Leeds, but from those of Liverpool, Bristol, Newcastle, Cardiff and Glasgow. After billions has been invested in Thameslink, Reading, HS1 and Crossrail, this project is about building 21st-century infrastructure in the midlands and the north, not just London and the south-east. It will support jobs and skills through our world-class rail supply chain at Hitachi in Newton Aycliffe, Bombardier in Derby, the training colleges in Doncaster and Birmingham, and the hundreds of small and medium-sized enterprises across the country that support the construction and maintenance of tracks and trains.

We urgently need better connections and more capacity, and HS2 is the right project to provide them. There are, however, questions that need to be answered about the Government’s stewardship of the scheme. HS2 was

23 Mar 2016 : Column 1670

always conceived of as a wider network, and Ministers were due to confirm the phase 2 route at the end of 2014, but that deadline has slipped by two years. That is compounding planning blight for residents, prolonging uncertainty about station locations and warding off private sector investment. It is incumbent on Ministers to confirm their plans for high-speed rail in the midlands and the north.

We have heard today about the Government’s inadequate treatment of Euston. The 1960s station is no longer fit for purpose. With 10 million more passengers a year using Euston than in 2010—a staggering increase of 43%—it is clear that a rebuild would be needed even without HS2. We urgently need a plan for a comprehensive redevelopment of Euston station, but four times HS2 Ltd has presented different plans for the site, all of which would lead to years of disruption for residents and businesses.

I have been glad to work with the Labour leadership of Camden Council to help to win a series of assurances from the Government on the removal of construction materials by rail rather than road, the development of a plan for an integrated station design and support for affordable housing provision. However, the reality still falls a long way short of the Chancellor’s rhetoric, and it is deeply disappointing that Ministers voted against our amendment on the matter. The Opposition will, no doubt, come back to that in the other place.

To conclude, as well as putting on the record my appreciation of the role played by my hon. Friends the Members for Middlesbrough and for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), who served as shadow rail Ministers during the passage of the Bill, I want to record my appreciation of my predecessors as shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friends the Members for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) and for Barnsley East (Michael Dugher), who all showed great constancy, even when there were reports of leaves on the line.

HS2 is essential for meeting our capacity challenge and rebalancing the economic geography of the UK. I will vote for the Bill today, and I encourage hon. Members on both sides of the House to do the same.

4.55 pm

Mrs Gillan: I have three minutes to sum up six years of hell for my constituents in Chesham and Amersham.

I pay tribute to the dignity and persistence of my constituents, who have remained committed to positive change in the face of great adversity. Those individuals are too numerous to mention, but they include my dedicated constituency staff, our local councils at all levels, our environmental and community organisations, the Clerks of the House—they have been tremendous—and colleagues who have served on both the Committees on the Bill.

I thank colleagues who have stood four-square with me, despite all the pressures that have been brought to bear on them when I have opposed the project. We have succeeded in making some positive changes that will make a real difference to people’s lives. The two extensions to the Chilterns tunnels are very important; the improvements to the “need to sell” scheme are also significant; and even the Chilterns AONB review panel, if it comes about, is important—to name but three aspects of the project.

23 Mar 2016 : Column 1671

However, HS2 is being built on the backs of my constituents, who are losing their homes, their businesses, their peaceful retirement, their heath and their communities. The Prime Minister promised me the most environmentally friendly Government ever and that compensation for people affected by HS2 would be fair and generous. This project will still cause damage along over 8 km of the line through a nationally designated, environmentally protected area, and many of my constituents are still fighting for fair treatment and compensation. They would not use the words “fair” and “generous” about the compensation.

For the all the inequitable and atrocious handling of the project, for the poor value for money for the taxpayer, for the inadequate integration of the project and for the damage it will cause my constituency and constituents, I will vote against the Bill again this afternoon. I urge hon. Members to join me in doing so. It may not achieve very much, because Labour and Conservative Members are being whipped to support the project, but at least I will be able to put my head on my pillow knowing that I have done the best by my constituents. I have tried to protect them from the ravages of a project that will consume vast amounts of taxpayers’ money and suck it out of the rest of the system. My constituents and many others up and down the line will pay disproportionately for the burden of political intransigence.

4.57 pm

Alan Brown: Once again, I confirm that we welcome the HS2 proposals before Parliament. We certainly welcome the wider context of the roll-out of the high-speed network, as well as the Government’s commitment, alongside that of the Scottish Government, to the aspiration for a three-hour journey time between Glasgow or Edinburgh and London. That will mean a quicker point-to-point journey time compared with using Gatwick or Heathrow airports. It will bring obvious environmental benefits and, clearly, much greater choice for air travellers.

I welcome the release earlier this week of the broad options report, which was commissioned by both Governments. It is important to develop these options as soon as possible to achieve shorter journey times to Scotland. In Scotland, the Scottish Government have confirmed their commitment to rail investment with the construction of the Borders rail line, which is the longest rail line to be constructed in the UK since Victorian times. As we have already heard, the vast bulk of the existing rail network was built in Victorian times. It stood the test of time fantastically, but now is the time to reinvest in and to future-proof the rail network. That will be done through these options.

I welcome the proposals, and I look forward to the roll-out of the high-speed network and to the improvements on lines to the north to improve journey times to Scotland.

4.59 pm

Mr Robert Syms (Poole) (Con): I will be brief. This has been a long process, and in many respects it has been Parliament at its best, listening to people from ordinary communities, many of whom will be badly affected by the impact of the railway. However, as a senior Clerk said to me, the last time we looked at the

23 Mar 2016 : Column 1672

Standing Orders was 1946, and without taking away the right of somebody to come before the Committee it is right that we consider that process. There will be further phases of this project, and perhaps airports will come in along the line. I therefore hope that the Leader of the House and the House authorities have a good look at how we could make things a little more efficient. On occasion, we listened to people who were burning up a lot of time but who we felt were not affected, and that had an impact on some people whose farms are being cut in half and who will be very badly affected. There is an argument for reform, and I hope that the House authorities consider it, so that any future Committee that has the good task of listening to people who will be affected by such a project will do so more efficiently.

5 pm

Mrs Ellman: I support the Bill, which will bring vital capacity for an expanding railway. It is reassuring to see that so many of the points raised by the Transport Committee in 2011 are now incorporated into the Bill, including maximising jobs, whether in construction or regional economic development. High Speed 2 is part of a connected railway, with plans for ensuring that lines freed by the construction of High Speed 2 can be used for passengers and freight. We must ensure that those who are not on a high-speed line or situated near a high-speed station do not lose out.

It is vital that the necessary investment in High Speed 2 does not come at the expense of investment in the classic line, but evidence to date suggests that that will not be the case. Improvements in other parts of the country, including east-west links, must be linked with high-speed rail as part of the connected rail network. When in phase 2 the trans-Pennine developments take place—now known as High Speed 3—it is vital that High Speed 2 is linked into that so that, in the words of Lord Adonis, the chairman of the National Infrastructure Commission:

“Route decisions on the northern sections of HS2 should support enhanced high speed connections within the north including between Leeds-Sheffield, Liverpool-Manchester, and Sheffield-Newcastle.”

I am sorry that we are not considering High Speed 2 as one Bill, and that instead we have it in two phases, and I hope that the end date of 2034 can be brought forward. However, I am pleased that we are deciding on the go-ahead for phase 1 of High Speed 2. This is for the future. It is about vision and confidence in the railway sector and public transport, and I hope that hon. Members will approve the Bill.

5.2 pm

Michael Fabricant: I am not one of those who say that HS2 is a white elephant, or that there is no congestion on the west coast main line—indeed, today 5,000 people arrive standing on trains as they come into Euston. I accept the need for an additional north-south corridor, and if that can be high-speed, then all the better because there is not that much additional cost.

Before I come to my main point, I wish to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr Syms) and all his colleagues for their work on the Committee, as well as the Transport Secretary who, given the structure of HS2, has been incredibly helpful to my constituents in Lichfield.

23 Mar 2016 : Column 1673

I do not believe, however, that I can support HS2, because it is not an integrated railway. I could not understand why it was so appalling, until I heard the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) say that HS2 is a Labour project. Only a Labour project could be so unintegrated with the rest of the transport system. Lord Adonis chose a system whereby people arrive at Euston from Birmingham and then have to trek across London with their bags to get to St Pancras. The promises that were made—that people would get on to a train in Birmingham and wake up in Paris—have come to naught. When people get to Birmingham, can they get on to network rail because the train arrives at Birmingham New Street? No. That would have been too obvious. This Labour project, so brilliantly designed yet so sadly duplicated by the Conservative Administration, instead goes into Curzon Street, and people have to schlep across Birmingham to get there, too.

It is about as integrated as my old Hornby 00 railway. I put that on the carpet and it went round and round, but it did not connect with the road or other railway systems, because it was a toy. I would not go so far as to say HS2 is a toy, but it is damaging and it could have been designed better. That is why I have to say to my hon. Friends the Whips that—I am not going to make it a habit—I will have to vote against Third Reading.

5.4 pm

Barry Gardiner: I am not against HS2. I am for trees, but not just any trees; trees that enhance our environment and improve our biodiversity. I want to pick up on two very brief points, in relation to the remarks of the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), on net biodiversity loss and translocation.

It is absolutely clear that the commitment in the Government’s White Paper was not simply to no net biodiversity loss but to leaving the natural environment of England in a better state. This project will set a precedent on how to deal with the natural environment for all future major infrastructure projects. The question is whether it will fulfil the promise of improving the natural environment, leaving it in a better state for our children. National planning policy framework 118 is absolutely clear:

“planning permission should be refused for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland”.

Ancient woodland is irreplaceable.

The Secretary of State used the figure of 7 million trees when he spoke from the Dispatch Box earlier. Seven million trees, if planted at the rate suggested by the Woodland Trust of 2,500 trees per hectare, would give rise to 2,400 additional hectares. I want a commitment from the Secretary of State that they will be additional hectares: additional to the Government’s promise that 5,000 hectares of new woodland will be planted in England each year, a promise that at the moment is not being met. Some 2,400 hectares had been planted up to 2014-15, which is more than 4,000 hectares light on the existing promise. I want a commitment that the additional 2,400 hectares—the 7 million trees he spoke of—will be on top of the existing promise that is not being met.

Finally, on translocation, Natural England clearly states that an

“ancient woodland ecosystem cannot be moved”.

23 Mar 2016 : Column 1674

The Woodland Trust’s extensive research into translocation states:

“The only thing that is certain when translocation of ancient woodland soils is undertaken is that a valuable habitat will be destroyed.”

There is no guarantee that a similarly valuable habitat will be created. The idea, therefore, that translocation can be used and justified as the Minister attempted to do earlier—he is an honourable and decent man using the information that his civil servants no doubt gave him—is wrong.

5.8 pm

Sir Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con): As someone who was involved in much earlier parts of the planning process, I am delighted that tonight the Bill will progress from this House to another place. That is long overdue. It is sad that, for far too many major infrastructure projects that this country badly needs, the process of getting from the beginning to the end is so drawn out.

I pay tribute not only to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Minister for all they have done—and to the civil servants who have backed them up—but to the Labour party, which was not prepared to play narrow party political games on what is in the national interest. It has stuck by the national interest to ensure that the project will go ahead.

I accept there will be disruption and problems along the line. That is very upsetting, but I offer one beacon of hope to those people. When I first came into this House in 1987, the same arguments were being bandied about across the Floor of the House on High Speed 1. The local authorities were against it and the local communities were against it. They fought it, with hon. Members in this House, tooth and nail to try to stop it. It happened, and now local communities along the route in Kent are thrilled with the resulting benefits—the economic benefits, the regeneration, and the improvements in connectivity and capacity. I am convinced that when HS2 is finally completed, in 2033, people who do not think there will be any benefits now will come to learn that there are major benefits not only to their communities but in improved capacity.

The point about capacity is critical. The west coast main line will run out of capacity in the middle of the next decade, and it is not acceptable for any Government, of whatever party, to ignore that fact and allow our transportation system to come to a grinding halt. I hope, therefore, that the Bill will have a speedy passage through another place and on to the statute book so that phase 2, to Leeds and Manchester, can be expedited. We will thereby finally get a fit-for-purpose, modern transportation system along the spine of this country.